• Trump would roll back food safety regulations
    92 replies, posted
This is bad for the UK and the EU also. When the TTIP gets passed (or something similar cept negotiated with an independent britain and not opposed by the sane EU members) then British and EU standards would drop to those of the US then the stupidity of Trump voters will make all of our food worse. @Americans please don't vote trump, British food is unhealthy enough already.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51056323]If he does win, [b]some patriot will likely do what needs to be done[/b]. That, after all, is what the amendment is for. But I find the idea he might win highly unlikely. He'll lose by a landslide, just wait and see.[/QUOTE] You're absolutely insane. This is the exact same mentality of the people who advocated the death of Obama if he won.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51059603]This is bad for the UK and the EU also. When the TTIP gets passed (or something similar cept negotiated with an independent britain and not opposed by the sane EU members) then British and EU standards would drop to those of the US then the stupidity of Trump voters will make all of our food worse. @Americans please don't vote trump, British food is unhealthy enough already.[/QUOTE] isn't TTIP basically dead?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51059603]This is bad for the UK and the EU also. When the TTIP gets passed (or something similar cept negotiated with an independent britain and not opposed by the sane EU members) then British and EU standards would drop to those of the US then the stupidity of Trump voters will make all of our food worse. @Americans please don't vote trump, British food is unhealthy enough already.[/QUOTE] It's bad for pretty much everyone. Getting rid of FDA regulations isn't going to magically make US farmers more competitive. There are plenty of farms down in Mexico and elsewhere that want to sell their food here but can't because they don't meet our safety standards. The goods are already there, we're just not a market for them because we don't like eating things that make us sick. Our market is going to be flooded with low quality imports. Sure, a tariff [I]might[/I] stop people from importing food from Mexico or China at first, but we still import a ton of food from India, Brazil, and Vietnam. There are also ways to shuffle goods around from country to country to bypass tariffs anyway. Cutting the FDA standards really just means we're going to see a lot more low quality imported goods, and it's going to hurt our exports everywhere that doesn't decide to ruin their food standards with us. Trump is setting us up for more low quality imports, less demand for our exports, [B][U]and thus a larger trade deficit[/U][/B]. Trump is prioritizing short-term gains over long-term growth and stability. Here he's planning on throwing Americans under the bus with policies that are only going to help foreign countries or scumbags at the expense of the general populace. Once again, you'll notice there aren't any Trump supporters in this thread defending this policy, or even acknowledging it. Instead, people choose to focus on attacking misguided comments about political revolutions and violence, because that's what really matters in this thread apparently.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51056933]Where are the usual Trump supporters now? A couple of them were trying to push the "pneumonia is contagious how dare Clinton infect people" angle before and are now oddly silent when Trump is planning on putting even more people at risk with this bit of policy.[/QUOTE] Just going to address the elephant in the room and say that none of them actually give a shit about being right, they only care about building a narrative, to hell with anything or anyone else.
while I am not going to pretend that the FDA doesn't have any frivolous regulations, but boy, what a hamfisted attempt to take care of that.
[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51060241]Just going to address the elephant in the room and say that none of them actually give a shit about being right, they only care about building a narrative, to hell with anything or anyone else.[/QUOTE] I'm going to try to keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I'm running my head into the wall here, but fuck it at least I'll be able to say I tried. Few have bothered to engage with posts focused on policy. Do I need to bait them with ad hominem? Do I need to engage in more Clinton apologetics? They readily gobble up those posts. We had pages and pages and pages devoted to the health of Clinton and Trump. Food, drugs, and cheap imported goods aren't apparently important enough to talk about. [QUOTE=OneFourth;51060279]while I am not going to pretend that the FDA doesn't have any frivolous regulations, but boy, what a hamfisted attempt to take care of that.[/QUOTE] They have been over stringent in some areas than they maybe need to be. The thing is, they do loosen regulations when they can justify it through safety data. They're an inherently slow regulatory body, but overall they have a pretty good track record. Their weakest areas right now are personalized genetic medicine, and situations where drug manufacturers aren't competitive enough.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51056323]If he does win, some patriot will likely do what needs to be done. [b]That, after all, is what the amendment is for.[/b] But I find the idea he might win highly unlikely. He'll lose by a landslide, just wait and see.[/QUOTE] Not going to point out how retarded and edgy you sound for advocating the assassination of political candidate in length, but there is a difference between overthrowing a government that is truly proven tyrannical, and already hoping to assassinate a democratically voted candidate who hasn't even done anything yet.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51059983]isn't TTIP basically dead?[/QUOTE] Only because france torpedoed it. All of the british conservatives support it and now that we're going it alone we (our dear politicians) will be free to negotiate a deal with similar or less favourable terms (less favourable to the british people) which will essentially be the TTIP. All those mouth breathers voted to leave the EU as a protest against globalisation. Don't realise that the EU was the only thing saving us from TTIP and that the EU is the only thing cracking down on corporate tax avoidance.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51060325]Not going to point out how retarded and edgy you sound for advocating the assassination of political candidate in length, but there is a difference between overthrowing a government that is truly proven tyrannical, and already hoping to assassinate a democratically voted candidate who hasn't even done anything yet.[/QUOTE] Where were you when Trump implied the same about Clinton, or do you only care when pseudonymous Canadian posters on the internet talk shit? Also, seriously, how can you even focus on that when Trump is talking about fucking up the FDA?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51056158]He's not serious, is he? This could literally led to people dying, and it's certainly going to make the obesity problem in America worse. [b]Why does he want to reform seemingly everything?[/b] It seems that he wants complete control of every little political thing in the States.[/QUOTE] Because he knows it will get the le anti-establishment retards hard and running to the ballots.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51060358]Where were you when Trump implied the same about Clinton, or do you only care when pseudonymous Canadian posters on the internet talk shit? Also, seriously, how can you even focus on that when Trump is talking about fucking up the FDA?[/QUOTE] it really is interesting how people hold people who oppose trump to a higher standard than trump himself
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51060358]Where were you when Trump implied the same about Clinton, or do you only care when pseudonymous Canadian posters on the internet talk shit? Also, seriously, how can you even focus on that when Trump is talking about fucking up the FDA?[/QUOTE] What's with your attitude on provoking every trump supporter every second post? Do you support [b]every[/b] policy Clinton makes? I sure hope not, because not even the candidates themselves last a year without changing their policies and it would mean you follow her blindly. No one is here defending this, which implies most people don't agree with this, no matter the political affiliation. In any case, despite being one of the first to call his policy stupid, let me entertain you with an actual defense. This is not a policy that it's being actively defended in any official statement and the only source you find for this policy is the OP source. With such an hate boner for Trump and toxic attitude against Trump supporters it's no wonder he is gaining more votes.
[QUOTE=ccg;51060414]Because he knows it will get the le anti-establishment retards hard and running to the ballots.[/QUOTE] I see three main reasons someone would want to do this: 1. He's being paid by unscrupulous farmers and producers or foreign nationals to let them dump their cheap goods into our market. 2. He's an actual idiot and honestly thinks this will help things. 3. He's taking advantage of other idiots like you said for short-term gains (his personal election) over long-term growth and stability.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51060358]Where were you when Trump implied the same about Clinton, or do you only care when pseudonymous Canadian posters on the internet talk shit? Also, seriously, how can you even focus on that when Trump is talking about fucking up the FDA?[/QUOTE] I spoke up in the thread when Trump made that comment stating I personally think you could interpret that statement in basically two ways; From him calling for assassination or just that 2nd amendment people would block together to vote against her. One is just as heinous as what a random Canadian posted on here, but one of them was alot clearer in the actual message. So I guess I was at my computer or something posting on a forums or something. Thanks for being concerned about my alibi. How can I focus on that instead of the FDA issues? Well calling for the assassination of a political candidate is in general more shocking than one of Trump's vague initiatives. Hell, I don't even know if he just wants to deregulate something as silly as a soda tax or uplift GMO oversight going from the article. And before you interpret that as perhaps me being fine with Trump's FDA plans, I actually am for keeping most regulations besides a few specifics that haven't been mentioned. How about stop jumping to conclusions on people who "appear" to support Trump. When really I think it's hypocritical as shit this guy is getting a pass on a forum that had to deal with the Secret Service already with a death threat on Obama here. I shit on Clinton all the time on here, but I sure as hell don't think she should get sniped out. [editline]16th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=bunguer;51060430] With such an hate boner for Trump and toxic attitude against Trump supporters it's no wonder he is gaining more votes.[/QUOTE] Seriously, there are select group of posters on here that straight-up argue hostiley like complete dipshits, and pour so much effort into people who just hint any kind of support/defense that might correlate to that Trump that all I can imagine is they probably converted more to Trump and echo-chambered than do the opposite.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51060444]I spoke up in the thread when Trump made that comment stating I personally think you could interpret that statement in basically two ways; From him calling for assassination or just that 2nd amendment people would block together to vote against her. One is just as heinous as what a random Canadian posted on here, but one of them was alot clearer in the actual message.[/QUOTE] Nope. Lets look at what Trump said. [QUOTE]“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”[/QUOTE] His scenario is predicated on the fact that she is already in a position to appoint judges. Which means she already got the vote. Which means he isn't saying that maybe second amendment people can vote against her, because it's too late. Which only leaves so many ways to interrupt what "Second Amendment people can do about a president before she picks her judges. This is basic English, English I'm sure you grasp, so why are you spinning it? Because Trump told you to?
[QUOTE=bunguer;51060430]What's with your attitude on provoking every trump supporter every second post? Do you support [b]every[/b] policy Clinton makes? I sure hope not, because not even the candidates themselves last a year without changing their policies and it would mean you follow her blindly.[/QUOTE] Because aside from you, the conversation this cycle hasn't been about actual policy for the most part. It's been about bullshit and empty rhetoric, and the people that tried to elevate the conversation to matters of policy and reasonable debate got burned out talking to Trump trolls early on. I've talked about failings in Clinton's policies and person before. Her stance on guns, her plan on immigration, her worrying history with trade deals, her war hawkishness, her personal security protocols, the cementing of the Clintons as a ruling class, all of these thing bother me and more. [QUOTE] No one is here defending this, which implies most people don't agree with this, no matter the political affiliation.[/QUOTE] That's a good thing. It's terrible policy. [QUOTE] In any case, despite being one of the first to call his policy stupid, let me entertain you with an actual defense. This is not a policy that it's being actively defended in any official statement and the only source you find for this policy is the OP source.[/QUOTE] The weird thing is [URL="http://trump.news/2016-05-09-top-10-reasons-why-donald-trump-will-protect-americans-from-the-lying-fda-epa-cdc-and-usda.html"]some Trump supporters were pushing this angle way back in May[/URL]. If he's not serious about this position, [URL="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/economic-vision"]he's still pushing for cutting the EPA[/URL] and [URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-science-of-president-trump/"]plenty of economists and scientists have spoken about that[/URL]. It's easy to make claims and then back away from them quietly like Trump is doing here. How am I as a voter to know which policies he's serious about if he does this so frequently though? Were I to vote for Trump, am I voting for a Trump that wants to screw up the FDA and EPA? What's his motivation here? Is he trying to pull a fast one on us and hope that people don't have a long enough attention span to see what he's actually doing?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51056323]If he does win, some patriot will likely do what needs to be done. That, after all, is what the amendment is for.[/QUOTE] But why stop there? Why not just go full IRA on congress? Why not send death threats to the corrupt? Why not warn them not to fuck people over, and when they inevitably do, set off carbon monoxide or an IED in the capital building during the next State of the Union? The ends justify the means right?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51060429]it really is interesting how people hold people who oppose trump to a higher standard than trump himself[/QUOTE] Maybe it's because one is just a forum poster running their mouth and the other is someone who could actually hold the most powerful office in the land.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51060444] Seriously, there are select group of posters on here that straight-up argue hostiley like complete dipshits, and pour so much effort into people who just hint any kind of support/defense that might correlate to that Trump that all I can imagine is they probably converted more to Trump and echo-chambered than do the opposite.[/QUOTE] You characterize people who disagree with you on Clinton's health as "dense" as well as "delusional", I don't think you a moral soapbox to talk from.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51060444] Seriously, there are select group of posters on here that straight-up argue hostiley like complete dipshits, and pour so much effort into people who just hint any kind of support/defense that might correlate to that Trump that all I can imagine is they probably converted more to Trump and echo-chambered than do the opposite.[/QUOTE] When some of the supporters can actually defend his atrocious policies (which should be the most important part of any presidential campaign) instead of trying to beat around the bush then I'm sure some of these posters will treat them with more patience and respect.
[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51060568]When some of the supporters can actually defend his atrocious policies (which should be the most important part of any presidential campaign) instead of trying to beat around the bush then I'm sure some of these posters will treat them with more patience and respect.[/QUOTE] To add on to this any "defenses" that are mounted are such wonderful things like conspiracy theory vids, their "belief" that everybody except Trump is lying, their mistrust of the media except insofar as it gives their glorious leader as well as those who support him attention, their habit of dismissing any evidence made against Trump or his policies as 'a big fat lie', conveniently vanishing from arguments when the evidence piles on high enough to discredit their further participation, and resorting to the same juvenile tactics he does (name calling, nitpicking, and so forth.) RIPBILLYMAYS, at least, is trying to argue more reasonably than most other Trump supporters on FP right now, so they have that going for them at least.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51060533]Because aside from you, the conversation this cycle hasn't been about actual policy for the most part. It's been about bullshit and empty rhetoric, and the people that tried to elevate the conversation to matters of policy and reasonable debate got burned out talking to Trump trolls early on. I've talked about failings in Clinton's policies and person before. Her stance on guns, her plan on immigration, her worrying history with trade deals, her war hawkishness, her personal security protocols, the cementing of the Clintons as a ruling class, all of these thing bother me and more. That's a good thing. It's terrible policy. The weird thing is [URL="http://trump.news/2016-05-09-top-10-reasons-why-donald-trump-will-protect-americans-from-the-lying-fda-epa-cdc-and-usda.html"]some Trump supporters were pushing this angle way back in May[/URL]. If he's not serious about this position, [URL="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/economic-vision"]he's still pushing for cutting the EPA[/URL] and [URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-science-of-president-trump/"]plenty of economists and scientists have spoken about that[/URL]. It's easy to make claims and then back away from them quietly like Trump is doing here. How am I as a voter to know which policies he's serious about if he does this so frequently though? Were I to vote for Trump, am I voting for a Trump that wants to screw up the FDA and EPA? What's his motivation here? Is he trying to pull a fast one on us and hope that people don't have a long enough attention span to see what he's actually doing?[/QUOTE] The thing is that in this thread specifically, no one is actually defending this specific policy which makes all the provoking posts seemingly unnecessary. EPA and FDA would deserve a thread of its own, there are some nuances besides simply "screwing it up" and it deals a lot with the skepticism of authority and the inefficiencies of those agencies - which definitely warrants some interesting discussions that I would hope that Clinton addresses in the future debates. For what matters, I personally lean towards those policies being counter-productive until more details are known.
[QUOTE=bunguer;51060614]The thing is that in this thread specifically, no one is actually defending this specific policy which makes all the provoking posts seemingly unnecessary.[/QUOTE] You're right. I am being needlessly antagonistic. What's more is that I missed your first post in this thread. This week has been something of an experiment for me. I've pretty consistently tried to defuse the bullshit and have for months watched with dismay as historically reasonable posters get bogged down and dragged into the thick of it. Doing the leg work, citing your sources, and really getting into the nitty gritty of things takes a lot of time and effort. Going through that and watching the usual peanut gallery make drive by low effort posts or outright ignoring everything is irritating. [QUOTE] EPA and FDA would deserve a thread of its own, there are some nuances besides simply "screwing it up" and it deals a lot with the skepticism of authority and the inefficiencies of those agencies - which definitely warrants some interesting discussions that I would hope that Clinton addresses in the future debates. For what matters, I personally lean towards those policies being counter-productive until more details are known.[/QUOTE] They absolutely deserve a thread, or even multiple threads of their own. There are lots of ways we could really improve the state of healthcare in the US if the FDA changed up the way clinical trials have to be done in a couple of instances. If you identify a drug therapy that's targeted against a specific genotype you're going to have major major hurdles to climb over because the FDA doesn't have good rules for those sorts of situations yet. Granted, talking about public policy on this sort of level requires a good amount of knowledge on the subject matter, and I get that not everyone works closely with the FDA or pharmaceutical companies. It is however extremely frustrating when analyses done by knowledgeable individuals are simply dismissed or ignored because people would rather clamber over each other for the latest petty insult Clinton or Trump decided to dish out. I'm absolutely dismayed that Clinton isn't focusing on policy and is instead reveling in shit slinging and misguided attempts at "meme warfare". Clinton keeps demonstrating that she is totally ineffectual herself despite the fact that she's collaborating with relatively intelligent people for her policy decisions. Both Trump and Clinton seem to be easily influenced. Clinton seems to stick to more credible institutions and individuals more often, but I don't honestly think that's much of a reflection of her personal integrity or intelligence, but rather the pull that these institutions have and their general effectiveness. She's clearly for sale to the highest bidder though, and I wonder at what point her fear of public shame can be overcome with cash. Trump seemingly doesn't give a shit. He's either in it for the money or just wants to surround himself with yes men. I don't see how he can continue to disregard historically neutral experts and institutions pretty much across the board. This election sucks balls.
Thank god for congress
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51060721] This election sucks balls.[/QUOTE] If I had to bet on a statement that more than 50% of voters would agree on, I would no doubt bet on that quote above.
Part of me thinks this could have been him trying to appeal to the "deregulate everything!" brand of libertarians and siphon votes away from Johnson, which he fucked up anyways if that's the case. Or it could just be him being his usual stupid self. At this point, neither would surprise me.
eriously, there are select group of posters on here that straight-up argue hostiley like complete dipshits, and pour so much effort into people who just hint any kind of support/defense that might correlate to that Trump that all <a href="http://uspstrackingservice.com">usps tracking</a> I can imagine is they probably converted more to Trump and echo-chambered than do the opposite. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Bot or something" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
Nice bump
[QUOTE=shad0w440;51555295]Nice bump[/QUOTE] December 2016 1 Posts spam bot
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.