Not to mention these idiots could live in a state that’s blue but not solidly blue and that state could possibly flip red because they assumed blue was safe in their state.

That’s why I used the word “solidly.”

Do you think non-voters and 3rd party presidential voters are smart enough to keep an eye on that kind of thing?

Some of them? Sure. Maybe not all of them. But it doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion. I was just making the claim that your math was including some voters that had no possible effect on Trump getting elected. And I still think that’s the case whether or not a number of people in purple states decided not to vote because Harris didn’t really speak to the economic realities they face everyday. Now we’re just quibbling over how wrong your math is.

To your broader point about the popular vote: I agree that people not voting or voting 3rd party impacts the popular vote, and the popular vote is indeed often used as a proxy for a national mandate. But Trump didn’t even break 50% on the popular vote—hardly a Reagan-style sweeping mandate despite initial reports to the contrary. So in this particular election, your point doesn’t even come into play. You’re calling people idiots for how they voted because of a theoretical outcome that didn’t occur.

Yes, voting in the U.S. is basically harm reduction. But what’s the point of voting to reduce harm if it doesn’t actually have much chance of doing that in your state? To be clear, I’m not advocating not voting. I’m advocating giving people a little grace if, via their vote, they didn’t materially contribute to the rise of fascism or whatever. In fact, you could say that someone voting third party in a solidly blue state has just as much impact on the election as someone voting blue in a solidly red one. It’s just numbers.

I don’t think your math quite works out. Voters who voted third party or didn’t vote and live in solidly blue states had no bearing on Trump’s election.

Makes sense, given that Oregon was founded as a “whites only” state.

You are right about human nature and the need to regulate, but us voters didn’t build shit. Crony capitalism and regulatory capture built our healthcare “system.”

If it was by choice, then they wouldn’t be a monarch. :D

I know, rite??

Probably because nobody uses RSS. Or websites.

Toeing the line? They’re going well beyond that. Have you read the BBC’s finger-wagging admonishment of the poors / puff piece for United Health?

Historically we can change zero big things at a time. But I agree with you. Our rate of change has got to change. (Mathematics/physics joke goes here.)

I think the point is that hexane is commonly used to extract seed oils, the subject of this thread.

I doubt those at the top believe in anything other than the almighty dollar.

Okie dokie.

In regards to subsidies, I was talking specifically about sweets, not fried food. Did you know that ~20% of calories in the American diet are from corn syrup? It’s an epidemic, and it’s in large part due to subsidies. People aren’t going to lose their sweet tooth, but they’d buy soda less often if it wasn’t so heavily subsidized.

As for fried food, granted, it’s a huge part of many cultures. But the fries at McDonalds aren’t. And taxes, for instance, are a real lever that can impact how often and how much certain foods are consumed.

Let me ask you something. Do you consider yourself a progressive? If so, why are you so convinced progress in certain areas is impossible?

It’s about frequency and quantity. Sure, people will always have a taste for unhealthy food. But until sugar/corn was massively subsidized in the U.S., people didn’t eat nearly as much sweet junk. It took a massive cultural shift to get to where we are today. Massive cultural shifts happen.

And what of that last link?

As I mentioned in another comment, today’s food economics are not written in stone. There are all sorts of tax and subsidy levers in the public policy toolbox. One reason, say, soybeans and soybean oil are so cheap in the U.S. today is farm subsidies.

Mostly because of his bias for veganism, which those linked videos have nothing to do with. But if you prefer more mainstream sources: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/how-vegetable-oils-replaced-animal-fats-in-the-american-diet/256155/

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324844#vegetable-oil

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9655691/

Okay… But it’s still a healthier solution than vegetable oil or tallow for the portion of the population that can be supplied with it, right?

Yeah, olive oil is not for deep frying. But maybe Americans shouldn’t be having quite as much fried food? (I say this as someone who just had fried food for dinner.)

I don’t quite follow. You’re saying that because not everyone can feasibly partake in healthier food, nobody should? Also, the current economic realities around certain food items aren’t fixed in stone. Taxes, tariffs, regulations, and all sorts of other policy levers can make big changes to the market.