85.2%

[Dr Exiled]

Could be both. How about we find out regardless of whether the corporate advertisers win or lose. These chemicals could be stimulating overeating.

Don’t forget about the other ‘c’ items:

- Commercials
- Capitalism
- Culture

Mainly, it’s the calories, though.

Thank whatever that there is someone willing to look further than the surface on this one. But, score one for you I guess. Calories are the surface answer and you were quick to put that out there and so congratulations. However, I suspect there is more to the story than you wave your hand at.

[canpakes]

This Fox News talking point is all the rage amongst conservatives, but can you point to actual real-world instances where white men have been economically and socially damaged - in any way - by this claimed denigration of them?

Maybe point to some Democratic Party platform item that encourages this?

The guy stepping into the White House next month spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertisements denigrating folks such as immigrants, accusing them of poisoning the blood of our country, and even repeating - in a national debate broadcast to the entire country - that immigrants are ‘eating the pets’.

It would appear that denigration by Republicans has worked very well for Republicans.

Anyway, Trump won because of “the groceries”. He said so himself. : D

You seem to be missing the point. I concur with most of your the points I've highlighted above, but it seems you're missing the broader perspective. Indeed, Donald Trump did not express favorable views towards minorities, women, or the majority of Americans, to put it mildly, and it often suggested that he should have unequivocally lost the election to Kamala.

The broader point may be what Molok hinted at earlier this morning. That being, that Democrats have somehow damaged some egos and possibly shined a light on occasional racist predilections or bigotry demonstrated by the larger demographic within the voter base. That demographic doesn’t appreciate this and has responded accordingly by refusing to support Democratic Party candidates at the polls. And this is, truthfully, a typical and expected reaction when you’re talking about normal, everyday, imperfect humans, right? No one likes to be told what to do or hear their default beliefs being challenged, or to have any of their darker demons exposed.

Yet the same voters who may have felt slighted by the Democrats were also the same voters who actively participated in the same behavior, directed towards immigrants, transgenders, or any other number of individuals that they believed could be blamed for all of their problems.

So what’s the workaround? You appear to keep suggesting that Democratic candidates should not ever mention anything that smacks of a social justice-aligned topic or concern. I don’t think that you’re hinting that they shouldn’t do so because those concerns should not be considered important, rather that they should be presented in a way that doesn’t damage fragile egos or make the predominant white male population feel threatened. If that’s the case, then what approaches do you feel will accomplish the traditional goals and values that you speak of while simultaneously not occasionally talking about that elephant that still lurks in the room far too often?

However, listen to what you're missing! Despite Trump's shortcomings, voters perceive the progressive agenda as even more unfavorable than that of a convicted felon and alleged rapist.

What is that agenda? Start to talk about that.

Progressives have become detrimental to the Democratic Party, and voters have recognized this reality. An agenda grounded in reason and practicality, reminiscent of the Democratic Party's focus in the 1980s and 1990s, would have prevailed against Trump, as there was a genuine concern for the average American and the working-class citizen during that time. However, that is no longer true. Currently, skin color and gender take precedence, with all other factors being secondary. Progressivism has completely overlooked the lessons that Martin Luther King sacrificed his life to impart to us.

Again, there needs to be some discussion about this ‘agenda’. Otherwise, merely repeating this claim seems like saying that the vapours cause disease, as doctors once believed. At some point, a theory must be dissected and tested to be proven relevant or true, or to formulate a cure, right?

As example, if you believe that, say, the Democratic Party acknowledgment that some transgender issues are relevant is somehow detrimental to the average American and working class citizen, then explain how that acknowledgment is detrimental. Or tell me your opinions on how approaches to those transgender issues - or any other seemingly divisive issue - cannot coexist with or are damaging unrelated strategies for benefiting the average American and working class citizen. Doing so while using examples from the platform (link given upstream) would be good. I can see themes regarding both equity and worker security within the platform, as example, and I’m not necessarily seeing any conflict from addressing both simultaneously, or alongside multiple other issues.

One thing seems certain - the Republicans are much better at planting the seed into voters minds about what Democrats supposedly want to do, better than Democrats are able to do the same about what they actually want to do. Which is to say, Republican candidates lie better. ; )

[canpakes]

Don’t forget about the other ‘c’ items:

- Commercials
- Capitalism
- Culture

Mainly, it’s the calories, though.

Thank whatever that there is someone willing to look further than the surface on this one. But, score one for you I guess. Calories are the surface answer and you were quick to put that out there and so congratulations.

Oooh, I scored! Is a prize involved here? Can it be something decadently rich and full of calories? w00t!

However, I suspect there is more to the story than you wave your hand at.

There might be. The entire food science industry exists to modify and enhance every food possible such that the general public will find it difficult to avoid shoving an entire can of Pringles down their throat instead of stopping at a ‘serving size’ of 5 of the little artificially-created hyperbolic parabola-shaped starch wafers.

But, that’s the joy and wonder of capitalism, innovation, and free markets. MAGA!!

[Doctor Steuss]

Obesity has increased in the majority of countries. That includes countries that ban additives and chemicals that the US doesn't. The US also bans additives and chemicals that are used in other countries.

The most likely culprit is availability and prevalence of calorie dense foods, and overall social practices. Regarding social practices and the prevalence of sedentary lifestyles, there was a Lancet study that indicated the highest prevalence of obesity is found within smaller island nations. What's interesting about that, is that most of those nations are under the oversight of a myriad of different nations (i.e. US, France, England, etc.). This could also be because of the types of foods available (i.e. heavily processed foods with long shelf-lives, and low price points that make importation complication costs viable for maintaining profit margins). Of course, the island nation has a small potential skewing if they are using BMI.

Could it be that some additives are triggering hunger hormones, or perhaps shutting off the "full" feeling? Yes, it's definitely possible. But when looking at the overlap of countries where certain compounds are legal, or certain insecticides are legal, you usually find a wide array of obesity rates.

Anecdotally, in every instance where I've helped someone with bodybuilding or weight loss, they had zero idea just how much crap they were eating until they were meticulously tracking it in a food journal. All of those "little handfuls" of stuff throughout the day add up big time.

I'm all for regulatory bodies, universities with research divisions, etc., being given the grants and funding necessary for rigorous, methodologically sound research surrounding food safety and physiological effects of compounds. The FDA and other entities should have more tools at their disposal, and researchers should be less reliant on corporate grants from the very entity's product they are researching. That will unfortunately require adequate funding and independence. I'm a bit less all for a conspiratorial anti-science rage-peddler guiding public health oversight.

That's my uneducated, non-expert take, anyway.

[Dr Exiled]

Thank whatever that there is someone willing to look further than the surface on this one. But, score one for you I guess. Calories are the surface answer and you were quick to put that out there and so congratulations.

Oooh, I scored! Is a prize involved here? Can it be something decadently rich and full of calories? w00t!

However, I suspect there is more to the story than you wave your hand at.

There might be. The entire food science industry exists to modify and enhance every food possible such that the general public will find it difficult to avoid shoving an entire can of Pringles down their throat instead of stopping at a ‘serving size’ of 5 of the little artificially-created hyperbolic parabola-shaped starch wafers.

But, that’s the joy and wonder of capitalism, innovation, and free markets. MAGA!!

The above is why markets have possible failed and is the reason we don't have child labor and regulate harmful products, hopefully. But, it's good you seem to be for reasonable regulations where needed.

[canpakes]

Obesity has increased in the majority of countries. That includes countries that ban additives and chemicals that the US doesn't. The US also bans additives and chemicals that are used in other countries.

The most likely culprit is availability and prevalence of calorie dense foods, and overall social practices.

An example along these lines:



The serving size count of two cookies provides 300 calories. With 8 servings within the bag, there’s 2,400 calories of energy in just this one little package. Chances are good that anyone looking for a snack could easily consume several ‘servings’ from this package in just a few minutes, without even thinking about what they’re doing.

I don’t know if this particular brand is nationally available; this package came from a discount chain. The cost? One dollar.

Somewhere, there are families working within a tight budget who are weighing whether they want to buy this cheap package of high-calorie cookies for their three kids, or if they instead want to spend three times as much on a head of romaine lettuce that’s providing 1/25 of the calories.

The availability of high-calorie but easily-accessible and cheap junk food at every level of the food supply network is incredible. Combine that with a general ignorance about dietary choices, the relative cost of even some basic and healthy alternatives, the situation with ‘food deserts’ around some metro areas, etc., and its easy to see how America is undergoing an obesity crisis.

[Gunnar]

This Fox News talking point is all the rage amongst conservatives, but can you point to actual real-world instances where white men have been economically and socially damaged - in any way - by this claimed denigration of them?

Maybe point to some Democratic Party platform item that encourages this?

The guy stepping into the White House next month spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertisements denigrating folks such as immigrants, accusing them of poisoning the blood of our country, and even repeating - in a national debate broadcast to the entire country - that immigrants are ‘eating the pets’.

It would appear that denigration by Republicans has worked very well for Republicans.

Anyway, Trump won because of “the groceries”. He said so himself. : D

You seem to be missing the point. I concur with most of your the points I've highlighted above, but it seems you're missing the broader perspective. Indeed, Donald Trump did not express favorable views towards minorities, women, or the majority of Americans, to put it mildly, and it often suggested that he should have unequivocally lost the election to Kamala. However, listen to what you're missing! Despite Trump's shortcomings, voters perceive the progressive agenda as even more unfavorable than that of a convicted felon and alleged rapist. Progressives have become detrimental to the Democratic Party, and voters have recognized this reality. An agenda grounded in reason and practicality, reminiscent of the Democratic Party's focus in the 1980s and 1990s, would have prevailed against Trump, as there was a genuine concern for the average American and the working-class citizen during that time. However, that is no longer true. Currently, skin color and gender take precedence, with all other factors being secondary. Progressivism has completely overlooked the lessons that Martin Luther King sacrificed his life to impart to us.

I think you are the one who is missing the point, Hound. You bought into the false claim by conservative bigots and racists that justifiable denigration of white bigotry and white supremacism is equivalent to denigration of all white people merely for being white. You know there has been a sad history of deplorable, systematic discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities by white majorities in this country. It is dishonest to minimize or whitewash that history and the damage it has done. It may be uncomfortable for many to realize or admit that some of their ancestors were indeed intolerant bigots, but I don't believe pointing that out that incontrovertible fact is equivalent to trying to make white children feel guilty merely for being white, nor do I accept that that was ever the intention of pointing out that reality, any more than I believe that people should be made to feel guilty because some of their ancestors were thieves or murderers. What really bothers conservative opponents of DEI or "wokeness" is the prospect of not being able to continue enjoying dominant status or preferential treatment merely for being white.

As I have said before, if you are adamantly "anti-woke" or anti DEI, you either don't really understand the real or original meaning and intent of those terms, or you are an intolerant bigot.

[Hound of Heaven]

As I have said before, if you are adamantly "anti-woke" or anti DEI, you either don't really understand the real or original meaning and intent of those terms, or you are an intolerant bigot.

Once more, you have it completely reversed. The progressives have taken the lead over the past 15 years, resulting in the Democratic Party developing an intolerance towards "whiteness." For "wokeism" to gain acceptance, there must be a rejection of "whiteness."

Our party has transformed into a platform of intolerance by permitting progressives to marginalize white culture, particularly white men. If you don't believe me, let me pose this question: does the contemporary Democratic Party address the needs of white individuals today? What emotions arise for you when I pose that question? Does it cause you discomfort?

The current Democratic Party, under progressive leadership, appears to have adopted an anti-white stance. It is clear to anyone observing the political landscape that the Democratic Party has explicitly stated on their website, democrats.org, who they represent. Interestingly, white people are notably absent from the list of those served by the party. All groups were represented on the list, including Black individuals, Pacific Islanders, ethnic Americans, LGBTQ individuals, Native Americans, and women, yet there was no mention of Caucasians or men. What is the reason for that?


Here is the link to democrats.org. As you can observe, there is an exclusion of whites, and there is no reference to men. As I mentioned earlier, prior to progressivism taking the lead in the Democratic Party, we assessed individuals based on their character rather than the color of their skin. https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/

[Molok]

The current Democratic Party, under progressive leadership, appears to have adopted an anti-white stance. It is clear to anyone observing the political landscape that the Democratic Party has explicitly stated on their website, democrats.org, who they represent. Interestingly, white people are notably absent from the list of those served by the party. All groups were represented on the list, including Black individuals, Pacific Islanders, ethnic Americans, LGBTQ individuals, Native Americans, and women, yet there was no mention of Caucasians or men. What is the reason for that?

Who are these progressives who have attained leadership of the democrat party? What progressive policies has the democrat party advocated for? By the way, when you go to Democrats.org the first thing you see is a white guy.

[canpakes]

Once more, you have it completely reversed. The progressives have taken the lead over the past 15 years, resulting in the Democratic Party developing an intolerance towards "whiteness." For "wokeism" to gain acceptance, there must be a rejection of "whiteness."

You’ve offered absolutely nothing to demonstrate any validity to this claim.

Watching you repeat it over and over is not unlike watching a random Fox News program.

Our party has transformed into a platform of intolerance by permitting progressives to marginalize white culture,…

Has mayonnaise been outlawed, or something? Can I not purchase Kraft American Singles at my local grocer?

What ‘white culture’ are you talking about, exactly?

… particularly white men.

Are white men occupying a particularly precarious position within the employment landscape?

Can you post the unemployment figures for white men alongside the various other demographics of your choosing? Or did you want someone else to do that?

If you don't believe me, let me pose this question: does the contemporary Democratic Party address the needs of white individuals today?

Please start that conversation by listing the culturally unique needs of white individuals that are being ignored.

Start any time.

What emotions arise for you when I pose that question? Does it cause you discomfort?

No, it makes me giggle and think that you’re a conservative masquerading as a ‘concerned Democratic Party voter’. : D

The current Democratic Party, under progressive leadership, appears to have adopted an anti-white stance.

Here’s where you’ve reached the end of your routine, and hit ‘repeat’.

Here is the link to democrats.org. As you can observe, there is an exclusion of whites, and there is no reference to men.

Also missing:

- Hawaiians
- Jewish people
- Haitians
- Dog owners
- Atheists
- Russian nationals
- Billionaire South African Immigrants

What are the culturally unique needs of white individuals that are being ignored?

As I mentioned earlier, prior to progressivism taking the lead in the Democratic Party, we assessed individuals based on their character rather than the color of their skin. https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/

When facing an opposing Republican Party that routinely assesses and accuses individuals based on the color of their skin rather than their character, the claimed Democratic Party approach might sometimes be necessary.