- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What do we think RFK will actually do regarding our food?
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This stuff already has been done (like the NYC soda ban, or the Philly sugar tax, etc.) and discussed on this board. A total 180 from this thread.
Indeed.
This is the cultish aspect of MAGA. They'll accept anything that donny approves.
quote:
A better question: who needs government to tell them Fruit Loops isn't healthy?
MAGA voters apparently.
This post was edited on 11/18/24 at 7:25 am
0
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
like the NYC soda ban, or the Philly sugar tax, etc.
Wasn't that more about limiting daily consumption vs this which is just saying red dye 40 shouldn't be in fruit loops when there are healthier options and those options are available in other countries so why not here?
Pretty big difference.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:25 am to stout
quote:
Pretty big difference.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:28 am to RogerTheShrubber
Roger, its 4:27AM in Alaska and you have been posting for an hour. Why don't you get some rest before having to go work for the man since you can't retire and are bitter about it towards successful people to the point of wanting every administration to fail?
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:29 am to stout
quote:
Wasn't that more about limiting daily consumption
Well one was an outright ban.
And those were done at the city level, mind you.
quote:
vs this which is just saying red dye 40 shouldn't be in fruit loops
Outright ban.
Leftist economic regulation
quote:
when there are healthier options and those options are available in other countries
Saying how much better Europe is on band for American Leftism
quote:
Pretty big difference.
The RFK one is worse, ignoring the Leftism. You're talking about an outright federal ban as opposed to states rights.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:31 am to SlowFlowPro
Oh noz a federal ban on red dye 40
Thats leftism!!!
Thats leftism!!!
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:38 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Oh noz a federal ban on red dye 40
Thats leftism!!!
By definition, it is.
"Consumer protection" is pretty much a leftist field, and always has been. Ralph Nader ran under the Green Party.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And those were done at the city level, mind you.
IIRC they were ruled to be unconstitutional because it was just a ban on consumption. Not a regulation on ingredients.
quote:
Outright ban.
Leftist economic regulation
Maybe it’s left-leaning of me, but I’m okay with saying that certain chemicals shouldn’t be approved for consumption if they’re found to have negative health effects—especially when healthier alternatives exist and are being used elsewhere.
quote:
You’re talking about an outright federal ban as opposed to states’ rights.
I get that you’re aiming for the small government angle here and want to criticize Trump and this board for not being small-government enough, but some regulation is necessary in certain industries. Not everything should be a free-for-all just so we can claim to be small government.
Regulating things that are collectively determined to be detrimental to health is reasonable.
The biggest issue with the FDA, in my opinion, is that many of its employees end up working for the companies they were supposed to regulate after leaving the FDA. This creates a potential conflict of interest and might make them more likely to approve things that should be scrutinized more closely.
If you truly want to support small government on this topic, you should be in favor of a seven-year ban on people joining the companies they regulated while working at the FDA, as RFK Jr. has proposed. This is a backdoor way of reducing monetary influence. It’s more regulation, but it helps mitigate the potential for corruption.
This post was edited on 11/18/24 at 7:41 am
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
By definition, it is.
Good. No one cares anymore. Just get that crap out of the food
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:43 am to stout
quote:
Why don't you get some rest before having to go work f
i work at 4a.
My song dedication to MAGA voters today... Hope some will soon get the message.
Waiting for someone to call
And turn your world around
Looking for an answer
To the question you have found
Looking for
An open door
Whoa, you don't get something for nothing
You can't have freedom for free
You won't get wise with the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dream might be
What you own is your own kingdom
What you do is your own glory
What you love is your own power
What you live is your own story
In your head is the answer
Let it guide you along
Let your heart be the anchor
And the beat of your song
Oh, you don't get something for nothing
You can't have freedom for free, no
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:44 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
i work at 4a.
Time to make the donuts?
Didnt realize Dunkin was in Alaska or are you just the morning security guard?
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"Consumer protection" is pretty much a leftist field
Yes the left oversteps on "consumer protection"
See Liz Warren and the CFPB that she started claiming it was to protect black people from financial predators but it has morphed into something far more detrimental to capitalism.
I think consumer protection is reasonable as long as it does what it is designed to do and does not become socialist as the CFPB has. There is a fine line that it has to stay in to be beneficial to society.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:46 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Time to make the donuts?
Youre the one needing govt to save you from junk food, not I, slick.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:46 am to RogerTheShrubber
How specifically am I needing the Govt to save me from junk food?
Be detailed
Be detailed
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's especially interesting on a movement without a binding philosophy that tries to clobber together anti-Leftism, yet projects leftism everywhere.
You can be anti-leftist and still support some of the values traditionally associated with the left, that have been abandoned. Again, you are thinking in absolutes and you’re just… wrong.
quote:
It's 100% a left or right issue.
No. It’s not.
“100%” — there you go with your black and white thinking again. You should honestly stop doing that.
quote:
How very Bernie bro of you to reference a Nordic nation
And there you go again with your labels. I can’t stand Bernie. I also like being around hot women and healthy people.
Again, you can be anti-left without being 100% against every single thing they say ever. Black and white thinking, man. Black and white thinking.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:47 am to SDVTiger
I would hate to be in my 60s and still have to get up at 4AM to go to work for someone else. 5 more years and I will consider hanging it all up at 50. Just need to buy a few more rentals but I will probably work still as I don't have the personality to ever fully retire but it will be at a much-reduced capacity and on something that doesn't even have to make money.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:50 am to stout
quote:
I would hate to be in my 60s and still have to get up at 4AM to go to work for someone else.
Keep supporting shitty progressive policies and you'll be there.
You can never argue the point, because you dont understand it.
This post was edited on 11/18/24 at 7:51 am
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:51 am to Mushroom1968
Examples of what can be done:
The U.S. government allows food companies to largely police itself, deciding which ingredients, chemicals, and additives are “safe” to use in their products. This has to change.
The U.S. government allows food companies to largely police itself, deciding which ingredients, chemicals, and additives are “safe” to use in their products. This has to change.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:51 am to TN Tygah
quote:
I can’t stand Bernie
He is a progressive, just like RFK.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 7:52 am to stout
quote:
IIRC they were ruled to be unconstitutional because it was just a ban on consumption. Not a regulation on ingredients.
Yes and that should be telling, because states and localities have a lot more power in this area in terms of Constitutional analysis
quote:
Maybe it’s left-leaning of me, but I’m okay with saying that certain chemicals shouldn’t be approved for consumption if they’re found to have negative health effects—especially when healthier alternatives exist and are being used elsewhere.
This eradicates so many of the arguments for those who claim MAGA but have a vestige of economic freedom in their bones. That's the bigger picture.
Take one specific argument: "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can - ?" Gone, until you can show me where the Constitution says the FDA can do this.
The argument on Trump decreasing regulation? Gone. This is a very large increase in federal regulation.
You can use the same Nanny state arguments for all of it.
quote:
I get that you’re aiming for the small government angle here and want to criticize Trump and this board for not being small-government enough, but some regulation is necessary in certain industries.
Petro, energy, healthcare, infrastructure, workplace safety, etc.?
quote:
The biggest issue with the FDA, in my opinion, is that many of its employees end up working for the companies they were supposed to regulate after leaving the FDA. This creates a potential conflict of interest and might make them more likely to approve things that should be scrutinized more closely.
I do agree (this applies generally to the fedgov bureaucracy) and this can be managed specifically without impacting general commerce. There is no right to federal employment, and a non-compete of sorts would be legal (if only we could eliminate the FTC Nanny state regs on non-competes, using the same consumer protectionist rhetoric, first).
Page 12 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News