So, I've been thinking a bit more about this nutrition issue, at least so I can give a better answer than what I offered above. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if in 10 or 20 years, it becomes fashionable to blame proteins for all of our nutritional woes, much like how we blame fats and sugar. In fact, sometimes I feel like this is being suggested when discussing the pros and cons of the carnivore diet. I've seen the term protein shock being thrown around a few times by detractors. Could be, I don't know. The author of the article that you linked is right in suggesting that fads have existed and continue to exist in the world of nutrition, and one should definitely maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. However, I get the feeling that the author might be a little too skeptical, at least for my taste. For example, even if the entire field of nutrition was shown to be just a lot of mumbo jumbo, I don't see how this would necessarily discredit other areas of scientific research (especially if those areas are unrelated to nutrition), a point which the author seems to suggested.
So, I've been thinking a bit more about this nutrition issue, at least so I can give a better answer than what I offered above. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if in 10 or 20 years, it becomes fashionable to blame proteins for all of our nutritional woes, much like how we blame fats and sugar. In fact, sometimes I feel like this is being suggested when discussing the pros and cons of the carnivore diet. I've seen the term protein shock being thrown around a few times by detractors. Could be, I don't know. The author of the article that you linked is right in suggesting that fads have existed and continue to exist in the world of nutrition, and one should definitely maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. However, I get the feeling that the author might be a little too skeptical, at least for my taste. For example, even if the entire field of nutrition was shown to be just a lot of mumbo jumbo, I don't see how this would necessarily discredit other areas of scientific research (especially if those areas are unrelated to nutrition), a point which the author seems to suggested.
I took his idea to be that widespread science-scepticism is promoted in no small part by bad nutrition science and pseudo-science. I didn't get the feeling that he's sceptical about all science.
I took his idea to be that widespread science-scepticism is promoted in no small part by bad nutrition science and pseudo-science. I didn't get the feeling that he's sceptical about all science.
My bad, you're right. I just checked it. There's a paragraph that he quotes that says "Admitting outright that we were wrong could discredit nutrition permanently—or even Science as a whole."
I thought that was his own point of view, but I just realized he was quoting someone.
Just resting in my easy-chair watching the latest fad diet infomercial (on PBS no less!) and decided to a little web-surfing about nutrition. Found this article that basically sums up my thoughts on the issue. Not sure this belongs in the politics section, but the government does publish nutrition guidelines so I'm posting it here. I know nutrition, just like politics & religion, is a heated topic but wanted to see what you all think...
This one bs move has confused the general public about proper nutrition for decades.
Another issue is that they are looking at the broad picture and what is the ideal nutritional intake for everyone at once when that is impossible to do since we’re all different. If you were to personally hire your own nutritionist, you’d see healthier results in your diet than attempting to follow basic guidelines.
Everything we consume can be bad for us if we don’t use moderation. Take sodium for example. We need sodium to survive. It is why we can taste salt. However the average person, due to eating processed, packaged foods, eats too much of it. The opposite is also true. If a person consume too much water they can get hyponatremia which dilutes the sodium in your body.
Just resting in my easy-chair watching the latest fad diet infomercial (on PBS no less!) and decided to a little web-surfing about nutrition. Found this article that basically sums up my thoughts on the issue. Not sure this belongs in the politics section, but the government does publish nutrition guidelines so I'm posting it here. I know nutrition, just like politics & religion, is a heated topic but wanted to see what you all think...
This one bs move has confused the general public about proper nutrition for decades.
Another issue is that they are looking at the broad picture and what is the ideal nutritional intake for everyone at once when that is impossible to do since we’re all different. If you were to personally hire your own nutritionist, you’d see healthier results in your diet than attempting to follow basic guidelines.
Everything we consume can be bad for us if we don’t use moderation. Take sodium for example. We need sodium to survive. It is why we can taste salt. However the average person, due to eating processed, packaged foods, eats too much of it. The opposite is also true. If a person consume too much water they can get hyponatremia which dilutes the sodium in your body.
Sugar isn't the 'only' reason for the confusion though. Every new 'superfood' comes with it's own 'scientific' studies and snake-oil salesmen. The real science gets buried under mountains of shoddy research. The basic premise of the article is spot-on if you ask me. The main problem is that real scientifically valid research is expensive and if there isn't some lobby group or another to pay for it, it won't be done. The lobbyists are more interested in 'proving' their product is great and real science is their worst enemy so they don't fund those projects either...
Plus, researchers don't have the obligation to publish negative results. This is a huge problem.
Especially since failed research is as valuable as successful research. How many blind alleys have been traversed multiple times needlessly because of that?
I agree that the author has a valid point - but I also agree that their argument goes far past that point. The article is itself not internally consistent. It states that science has told us nothing about nutrition ("Nutrition has made no progress. It has discovered no stable facts. Everything nutritionists have said, they have said the opposite ten or twenty years later (if not much sooner). While that position remains the basic premise of the article throughout, there are several references in the article that undercut it and the author is happy to place reliance on scientific studies when that suits them: ("most studies concluded that dietary cholesterol does not increase blood cholesterol and does not cause cardiovascular disease")
It's quite possible that the author has started from a position I would agree with:
- non-scientists pretending to be scientists is bad
- scientists working corruptly to promote the financial interests of industry is bad
However, even if those were the starting point, the article has extrapolated beyond that to a more general message about the ability of science to work in relation to nutrition at all. Applying the scientific method to that extrapolation, I'd have to say there is no evidence presented in its favor .
What I am saying though is that actual nutritionists aren't peddling snake-oil and pretty much all the research to eat healthily has been done and is out there. Eating healthy however can be expensive and time consuming, two things that really prevent more people from eating healthier. The third is marketing/advertising of unhealthy products or comfort foods.
And yes, any random article pertaining to the health benefits of a single food should be viewed as what it is, a PR/marketing ploy to increase the exposure of that food. The one thing all 'super foods' have in common is that their all natural and weren't a staple of the North American diet 20 years ago.
What I am saying though is that actual nutritionists aren't peddling snake-oil and pretty much all the research to eat healthily has been done and is out there. Eating healthy however can be expensive and time consuming, two things that really prevent more people from eating healthier. The third is marketing/advertising of unhealthy products or comfort foods.
And yes, any random article pertaining to the health benefits of a single food should be viewed as what it is, a PR/marketing ploy to increase the exposure of that food. The one thing all 'super foods' have in common is that their all natural and weren't a staple of the North American diet 20 years ago.
Most so-called super-foods also weren't widely available to human beings throughout history, yet claim to have 'evolutionary' benefits associated with them. Total hogwash as far as I'm concerned. That's like saying a Madagascar lemur requires some plant in South America in order to provide some scarce 'nutrient'.
In my experience diet alone does not determine one's level of health, it is just one part of your lifestyle: A balanced, nutritious diet won't 'make you healthy' if you're restricted to you home 24/7. Equally, the consequences of an unbalanced 'eat what you like' diet can be ameliorated by plenty of fresh air and exercise.
There are studies all the way back to the 70s that show sugar is bad. So yes, the idea that fat=bad is entirely due to sugar lobbyists shaping information to suit their needs.
For the record "organic" "nutritious" "all natural" "processed" and "Junk food" are just marketing buzzwords at this point. Their actual meanings discarded long ago.
There are studies all the way back to the 70s that show sugar is bad. So yes, the idea that fat=bad is entirely due to sugar lobbyists shaping information to suit their needs.
For the record "organic" "nutritious" "all natural" "processed" and "Junk food" are just marketing buzzwords at this point. Their actual meanings discarded long ago.
When I say ‘processed’ I mean you buy it in a box. 95% of the things you buy in a box from a grocery store is garbage. The one exception I can name off the top of my head is Instant plain oatmeal and that’s if the brand does not add sugar to it.
We STILL haven't gotten a single story like this about Democratic voters from ANY news outlet in print or on television since 2016. Not one. And I read this whole article. And the reasoning for every single person they interviewed who thinks the election was stolen is, quite literally, nothing more than "I simply don't believe Biden could have won, and that is that." This is profoundly stupid country. These people are too lazy to even formulate a coherent THEORY to use as a starting point:
Here's a phenomenon that I've been paying attention to for a few months now, and that I find intriguing: First Amendment Audits and Second Amendment Audits. There's no wiki for the latter, but I'm sure there's some websites about it.
It seems like a right wing thing, although the advocates of these movements prefer to describe themselves as constitutionalists. I always find it intriguing when right wingers clash with state and/or federal law enforcers. Most of the videos that I've seen from activists suggest that they genuinely believe that what they're doing is for a political cause. A few others, however, give me the impression that what they're doing is more about getting a lot of viewers and followers on youtube, with the hopes of making money off of baiting cops and public employees in general.
I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are on this.
I think they're most useful for proving just how much a white person can get away with without being shot that a black person couldn't in a million years. While black parents, to a person, are telling their children how to come home alive after routine traffic stops, these jack-offs are brandishing weapons in public with the express intent of initiating a confrontation with cops, in which they are treated with far more patience than they deserve, and more than any minority in the country would ever be granted.
It exposes two things, perhaps by accident (at least to the people initiating them). One is the absolute deference these cops treat armed white people with. The other is the FLAGRANT entitlement of the initiators.
There ARE a couple videos of stunningly brave (or stupid) African-Americans doing basically the same thing with an open-carry situation. Spoiler: basically the entire police force converged on him as if they had just found Whitey Bulger in hiding after decades on the run.
All of these are anecdotal, but I think we know the basic truth of what I'm saying here. I actually think most white people who PRETEND there isn't a double-standard in policing know that there, in fact, is one. They just happen to like it that way.
See, again, the storming of the Michigan capitol with weapons. In the end, it turned out that more than one person who participated in that was involved in a plot that included plans to execute the Governor of Michigan on live television.
There ARE a couple videos of stunningly brave (or stupid) African-Americans doing basically the same thing with an open-carry situation. Spoiler: basically the entire police force converged on him as if they had just found Whitey Bulger in hiding after decades on the run.
That by itself did convince some of the white folks of these movements that there is indeed a double standard. Some people won't be persuaded by words alone, but sometimes they begin to see things in a different way when confronted with unquestionable evidence. To me, that's something.
There ARE a couple videos of stunningly brave (or stupid) African-Americans doing basically the same thing with an open-carry situation. Spoiler: basically the entire police force converged on him as if they had just found Whitey Bulger in hiding after decades on the run.
That by itself did convince some of the white folks of these movements that there is indeed a double standard. Some people won't be persuaded by words alone, but sometimes they begin to see things in a different way when confronted with unquestionable evidence. To me, that's something.
I have seen people like Aman Bundy offer support for the George Floyd situation. I'm just not entirely sure he yet understands he was allowed to lead an armed takeover of federal land for well over a month with NO repercussions because he was a.) white and b.) conservative. I was livid about it at the time, but I do understand that Obama did not want another Ruby Ridge/Waco situation. And yet, as always, the right-wing media made them martyrs anyway. Alot of the seeds of the current militia movement can be traced to those incidents in the early '90s.
There ARE a couple videos of stunningly brave (or stupid) African-Americans doing basically the same thing with an open-carry situation. Spoiler: basically the entire police force converged on him as if they had just found Whitey Bulger in hiding after decades on the run.
That by itself did convince some of the white folks of these movements that there is indeed a double standard. Some people won't be persuaded by words alone, but sometimes they begin to see things in a different way when confronted with unquestionable evidence. To me, that's something.
I have seen people like Aman Bundy offer support for the George Floyd situation. I'm just not entirely sure he yet understands he was allowed to lead an armed takeover of federal land for well over a month with NO repercussions because he was a.) white and b.) conservative. I was livid about it at the time, but I do understand that Obama did not want another Ruby Ridge/Waco situation. And yet, as always, the right-wing media made them martyrs anyway. Alot of the seeds of the current militia movement can be traced to those incidents in the early '90s.
I'm not really up to date with the situation of the new right wing militias, but I agree that it's difficult not think of Ruby Ridge or the Waco siege (or the Oklahoma City bombing, or mass shooters in general) when one watches 1st or 2nd amendment audit videos. Though that may say more about us as viewers, since it seems that there hasn't been any major incident caused by this group of activists. As far as I know, all of the major incidents have been caused by law enforcement or private security guards, for example (and to your point, about the double-standard) an incident in which a transgender auditor was shot in the leg by an armed security guard.
Even though most of these auditors are probably not left-wingers by any stretch of the imagination, on some level they sense that the system is fundamentally flawed in some way, although they believe that the root of the problem has to do with the ignorance, incompetence and corruption of public employees, particularly law enforcement, as opposed to being a much more complicated economic problem involving big players such as the military-industrial complex.
There are studies all the way back to the 70s that show sugar is bad. So yes, the idea that fat=bad is entirely due to sugar lobbyists shaping information to suit their needs.
For the record "organic" "nutritious" "all natural" "processed" and "Junk food" are just marketing buzzwords at this point. Their actual meanings discarded long ago.
When I say ‘processed’ I mean you buy it in a box. 95% of the things you buy in a box from a grocery store is garbage. The one exception I can name off the top of my head is Instant plain oatmeal and that’s if the brand does not add sugar to it.
This is part of what I'm talking about though. These products are 100% not anywhere near as healthy as marketing would claim, but they are far from "garbage". There's been a big movement to declare anything pre-packaged and frozen as "processed garbage" but there's no real data to back those claims up.
There are studies all the way back to the 70s that show sugar is bad. So yes, the idea that fat=bad is entirely due to sugar lobbyists shaping information to suit their needs.
For the record "organic" "nutritious" "all natural" "processed" and "Junk food" are just marketing buzzwords at this point. Their actual meanings discarded long ago.
When I say ‘processed’ I mean you buy it in a box. 95% of the things you buy in a box from a grocery store is garbage. The one exception I can name off the top of my head is Instant plain oatmeal and that’s if the brand does not add sugar to it.
This is part of what I'm talking about though. These products are 100% not anywhere near as healthy as marketing would claim, but they are far from "garbage". There's been a big movement to declare anything pre-packaged and frozen as "processed garbage" but there's no real data to back those claims up.
Oh course there is no data. ‘Garbage’ isn’t a scientific term. That doesn’t mean that most of it either loaded with Sodium, Sugars or having little dietary fibre.
Just read nutritional labels and ingredient lists, it’s all there. If you want to provide an actual product, I can show you how it’s garbage or not.
This short video was instantly demonetized and shadow banned on Youtube.
This may be news for Americans, but in the rest of the world this is common knowledge. An Italian seeing the CIA guy openly talk about screwing up their election (and doing the same to this day to other countries) and Laura Ingram just laughing about it as if it's nothing makes my blood boil.
Features interviews with former agents describing why operations and coups were conducted. (They don't like anything that shows that American capitalism is not the best thing ever. For example Cuba where Doctors and teachers are common and healthcare is universal was particularly hated and a target after it broke from from 50+ years of US control)
There are studies all the way back to the 70s that show sugar is bad. So yes, the idea that fat=bad is entirely due to sugar lobbyists shaping information to suit their needs.
For the record "organic" "nutritious" "all natural" "processed" and "Junk food" are just marketing buzzwords at this point. Their actual meanings discarded long ago.
When I say ‘processed’ I mean you buy it in a box. 95% of the things you buy in a box from a grocery store is garbage. The one exception I can name off the top of my head is Instant plain oatmeal and that’s if the brand does not add sugar to it.
This is part of what I'm talking about though. These products are 100% not anywhere near as healthy as marketing would claim, but they are far from "garbage". There's been a big movement to declare anything pre-packaged and frozen as "processed garbage" but there's no real data to back those claims up.
Oh course there is no data. ‘Garbage’ isn’t a scientific term. That doesn’t mean that most of it either loaded with Sodium, Sugars or having little dietary fibre.
Just read nutritional labels and ingredient lists, it’s all there. If you want to provide an actual product, I can show you how it’s garbage or not.
I guess you'll have to define "garbage", but literally anything we can digest has nutrition. One can actually live off of fast food without loss of health so long as they portion control and get enough variety of it.
It's odd... that article suggests that rural voters aren't voting Democrat because of Democrats who aren't far enough to the left; it's about a county that went red after seeing Obama's administration fail to take up antitrust action--a classic Democratic priority that the GOP has long opposed. It also points out that rural stagnation suffers from a lack of Internet access, and the only folks calling for nationally-funded, high-speed, free Internet access are on the left. The GOP is opposed to the same things that this Trump-supporting county says they want.
There's no mention of any specific policy they thought Trump would do, or even a policy he had done that they liked--just an abstract hope that he would "stand up" to "elitists."
Despite the complaint that Democrats think that rural folks vote against their own interests out of ignorance, this article describes that exact scenario: rural folks voting for a party that opposes the antitrust action they want.
It's odd... that article suggests that rural voters aren't voting Democrat because of Democrats who aren't far enough to the left; it's about a county that went red after seeing Obama's administration fail to take up antitrust action--a classic Democratic priority that the GOP has long opposed. It also points out that rural stagnation suffers from a lack of Internet access, and the only folks calling for nationally-funded, high-speed, free Internet access are on the left. The GOP is opposed to the same things that this Trump-supporting county says they want.
There's no mention of any specific policy they thought Trump would do, or even a policy he had done that they liked--just an abstract hope that he would "stand up" to "elitists."
Despite the complaint that Democrats think that rural folks vote against their own interests out of ignorance, this article describes that exact scenario: rural folks voting for a party that opposes the antitrust action they want.
I think it's more that they felt betrayed by Obama when the Democrats didn't put their money where their mouth was in regards to 'big multi-national corporations'. Talk without action is worthless.
Even Barr is saying there is no fraud. I know that will change very few minds, but we're basically past the point of Trump being able to do anything about the election. It's over. It was over before, too - but now it's overover - or something.
Goodguys win. Democracy survives for another election...
Even Barr is saying there is no fraud. I know that will change very few minds, but we're basically past the point of Trump being able to do anything about the election. It's over. It was over before, too - but now it's overover - or something.
Goodguys win. Democracy survives for another election...
I think (despite a 7 million vote win nationally) if this had all come down to a margin of, say, 10,000 votes in WI, we'd be having an entirely different conversation. The worry all along was that Biden didn't just have to win, but he had to win in such a way that made the result impossible to take away. Adding AZ and GA provided that margin.
I continue to be absolutely amazed at the arguments I see coming about why the election MUST have been stolen. All of them, even from those willing to tell you that's what they think, boil down to variations of "You really think Biden got more black votes in this location than Obama" or "Biden couldn't have won, look at his small crowd sizes". In other words, their GUT tells them Biden lost, and they don't need anything else presented to them to believe that.
Comments
I took his idea to be that widespread science-scepticism is promoted in no small part by bad nutrition science and pseudo-science. I didn't get the feeling that he's sceptical about all science.
My bad, you're right. I just checked it. There's a paragraph that he quotes that says "Admitting outright that we were wrong could discredit nutrition permanently—or even Science as a whole."
I thought that was his own point of view, but I just realized he was quoting someone.
That article is crap.
One of the reasons why science has been confused about nutrition for the last 50 years is due the the sugar lobby influencing early research to point the blame at Fat instead of their product. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
This one bs move has confused the general public about proper nutrition for decades.
Another issue is that they are looking at the broad picture and what is the ideal nutritional intake for everyone at once when that is impossible to do since we’re all different. If you were to personally hire your own nutritionist, you’d see healthier results in your diet than attempting to follow basic guidelines.
Everything we consume can be bad for us if we don’t use moderation. Take sodium for example. We need sodium to survive. It is why we can taste salt. However the average person, due to eating processed, packaged foods, eats too much of it. The opposite is also true. If a person consume too much water they can get hyponatremia which dilutes the sodium in your body.
Sugar isn't the 'only' reason for the confusion though. Every new 'superfood' comes with it's own 'scientific' studies and snake-oil salesmen. The real science gets buried under mountains of shoddy research. The basic premise of the article is spot-on if you ask me. The main problem is that real scientifically valid research is expensive and if there isn't some lobby group or another to pay for it, it won't be done. The lobbyists are more interested in 'proving' their product is great and real science is their worst enemy so they don't fund those projects either...
Especially since failed research is as valuable as successful research. How many blind alleys have been traversed multiple times needlessly because of that?
It's quite possible that the author has started from a position I would agree with:
- non-scientists pretending to be scientists is bad
- scientists working corruptly to promote the financial interests of industry is bad
However, even if those were the starting point, the article has extrapolated beyond that to a more general message about the ability of science to work in relation to nutrition at all. Applying the scientific method to that extrapolation, I'd have to say there is no evidence presented in its favor
And yes, any random article pertaining to the health benefits of a single food should be viewed as what it is, a PR/marketing ploy to increase the exposure of that food. The one thing all 'super foods' have in common is that their all natural and weren't a staple of the North American diet 20 years ago.
Most so-called super-foods also weren't widely available to human beings throughout history, yet claim to have 'evolutionary' benefits associated with them. Total hogwash as far as I'm concerned. That's like saying a Madagascar lemur requires some plant in South America in order to provide some scarce 'nutrient'.
For the record "organic" "nutritious" "all natural" "processed" and "Junk food" are just marketing buzzwords at this point. Their actual meanings discarded long ago.
When I say ‘processed’ I mean you buy it in a box. 95% of the things you buy in a box from a grocery store is garbage. The one exception I can name off the top of my head is Instant plain oatmeal and that’s if the brand does not add sugar to it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fraud-insight/why-republican-voters-say-theres-no-way-in-hell-trump-lost-idUSKBN2801D4
It seems like a right wing thing, although the advocates of these movements prefer to describe themselves as constitutionalists. I always find it intriguing when right wingers clash with state and/or federal law enforcers. Most of the videos that I've seen from activists suggest that they genuinely believe that what they're doing is for a political cause. A few others, however, give me the impression that what they're doing is more about getting a lot of viewers and followers on youtube, with the hopes of making money off of baiting cops and public employees in general.
I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are on this.
Here's a video for a First Amendment audit:
And here's one for a second amendment audit:
It exposes two things, perhaps by accident (at least to the people initiating them). One is the absolute deference these cops treat armed white people with. The other is the FLAGRANT entitlement of the initiators.
There ARE a couple videos of stunningly brave (or stupid) African-Americans doing basically the same thing with an open-carry situation. Spoiler: basically the entire police force converged on him as if they had just found Whitey Bulger in hiding after decades on the run.
All of these are anecdotal, but I think we know the basic truth of what I'm saying here. I actually think most white people who PRETEND there isn't a double-standard in policing know that there, in fact, is one. They just happen to like it that way.
See, again, the storming of the Michigan capitol with weapons. In the end, it turned out that more than one person who participated in that was involved in a plot that included plans to execute the Governor of Michigan on live television.
That by itself did convince some of the white folks of these movements that there is indeed a double standard. Some people won't be persuaded by words alone, but sometimes they begin to see things in a different way when confronted with unquestionable evidence. To me, that's something.
I have seen people like Aman Bundy offer support for the George Floyd situation. I'm just not entirely sure he yet understands he was allowed to lead an armed takeover of federal land for well over a month with NO repercussions because he was a.) white and b.) conservative. I was livid about it at the time, but I do understand that Obama did not want another Ruby Ridge/Waco situation. And yet, as always, the right-wing media made them martyrs anyway. Alot of the seeds of the current militia movement can be traced to those incidents in the early '90s.
And of course Trump pardoned the bastards anyway.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/hammonds-trump-pardon/index.html
Even though most of these auditors are probably not left-wingers by any stretch of the imagination, on some level they sense that the system is fundamentally flawed in some way, although they believe that the root of the problem has to do with the ignorance, incompetence and corruption of public employees, particularly law enforcement, as opposed to being a much more complicated economic problem involving big players such as the military-industrial complex.
(Edited for clarity)
This is part of what I'm talking about though. These products are 100% not anywhere near as healthy as marketing would claim, but they are far from "garbage". There's been a big movement to declare anything pre-packaged and frozen as "processed garbage" but there's no real data to back those claims up.
Oh course there is no data. ‘Garbage’ isn’t a scientific term. That doesn’t mean that most of it either loaded with Sodium, Sugars or having little dietary fibre.
Just read nutritional labels and ingredient lists, it’s all there. If you want to provide an actual product, I can show you how it’s garbage or not.
This may be news for Americans, but in the rest of the world this is common knowledge. An Italian seeing the CIA guy openly talk about screwing up their election (and doing the same to this day to other countries) and Laura Ingram just laughing about it as if it's nothing makes my blood boil.
Features interviews with former agents describing why operations and coups were conducted. (They don't like anything that shows that American capitalism is not the best thing ever. For example Cuba where Doctors and teachers are common and healthcare is universal was particularly hated and a target after it broke from from 50+ years of US control)
I guess you'll have to define "garbage", but literally anything we can digest has nutrition. One can actually live off of fast food without loss of health so long as they portion control and get enough variety of it.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/01/democrats-rural-vote-wisconsin-441458
There's no mention of any specific policy they thought Trump would do, or even a policy he had done that they liked--just an abstract hope that he would "stand up" to "elitists."
Despite the complaint that Democrats think that rural folks vote against their own interests out of ignorance, this article describes that exact scenario: rural folks voting for a party that opposes the antitrust action they want.
I think it's more that they felt betrayed by Obama when the Democrats didn't put their money where their mouth was in regards to 'big multi-national corporations'. Talk without action is worthless.
Even Barr is saying there is no fraud. I know that will change very few minds, but we're basically past the point of Trump being able to do anything about the election. It's over. It was over before, too - but now it's overover - or something.
Goodguys win. Democracy survives for another election...
I think (despite a 7 million vote win nationally) if this had all come down to a margin of, say, 10,000 votes in WI, we'd be having an entirely different conversation. The worry all along was that Biden didn't just have to win, but he had to win in such a way that made the result impossible to take away. Adding AZ and GA provided that margin.
I continue to be absolutely amazed at the arguments I see coming about why the election MUST have been stolen. All of them, even from those willing to tell you that's what they think, boil down to variations of "You really think Biden got more black votes in this location than Obama" or "Biden couldn't have won, look at his small crowd sizes". In other words, their GUT tells them Biden lost, and they don't need anything else presented to them to believe that.