ActualCornHusker

Not a big deal, but you can add it to the list of the bizarre things he has said and done, especially as he grows more senile

What in the absolute world....

I'd love to see Held moved to OC/RB coach and either Ron Brown coaching the WRs or... the return of Keith Williams

Another one that is worth looking into, as I haven't done so yet myself, is the vaping bans that are happening. I'd almost guarantee that there is tobacco money behind a lot of that - just as I'm sure there's a lot of pharmaceutical money that's been poured into making sure that marijuana and hemp are illegal.

1) The only way companies exert their power is through lobbying the government for special treatment, so I agree with you. 2) I think you'd be extremely surprised on this one. I will try to find it, but I recall a couple years ago watching an interview with a senator who told the story of when he was very new to politics at that level and lobbyists brought MORE regulation to him to pass. This is a tactic that large corporations use all the time today - they actually lobby for more rules and regulations because they have the scale already to be able to handle the added costs, and it makes it WAY more difficult for new competitors to be able to enter the marketplace and take market share from them. Have you asked yourself why Amazon is now supporting a $15 minimum wage? It's not out of the goodness of their hearts... To clarify, certain regulations regarding welfare of workers and pollution absolutely should stay and be enforced. So before someone accuses me of being anarcho-capitalist, that's not what I'm advocating. There's just FAR too much regulation and unnecessary rules on the books currently - much more than almost every other country on the planet, including the nordic countries that people love to praise so much.

2 Questions: 1) How do companies exercise their power and influence? 2) Do large companies like or dislike regulations?

That should be up to the local district to decide. I'm sure some would follow state-recommended protocol, some would choose to follow federal guidelines, and some would do something unique altogether... But they should have a choice. A lot of that information comes from lobbied research, but a lot does not. Ever look at the ridiculous federal diet recommendations for diabetics? Who lobbied for that? Maybe it was paid for, but it appears to be terrible info disseminated by the federal govt. I'm not opposed to anti-lobbying legislation depending on how it's implemented and what the language states. I think most regulations should be placed on government, not the other way around. Regarding the bolded: As opposed to what? There will always be misinformation that's intentionally propagated for personal/business gain. Do you prefer the government to get behind that misinformation? Because that's what happens now... Large, powerful government filled with people who think they know better how to live someone else's life than they do is FAR more likely to spread misinformation and propaganda - because they have far more to gain by doing so as a result...

No... It's not... It's saying that perhaps people in Utah would choose to feed their children at school differently than people in NYC, and they're not able to currently... Just as importantly as what would be how much

Interesting. Question for you: How do corporations go about expressing their power over a populace?

The solution would be to tell the federal govt where they can stick it and do away with their guidelines. Local communities can decide for themselves. Fast forward to today, and we've basically figured out that the nutritional pyramid is almost upside down. Having grains and starches as the foundation of the pyramid and the largest portion of the diet is terrible misinformation that has done incredible harm.

It's one example, guys. It's not the main point. But I'll maintain that there is no reasonable reason for the government to dictate what schools can and can't serve for lunch. I've seen too many kids (specifically athletes) who are not served adequate protein or calories as school lunches currently exist. Yes, they can replace or supplement with food from home, but they shouldn't have to as a result of federal guidelines that shouldn't exist anyways... Again, it's ONE example

THAT... could not be more wrong...

Who said there wouldn't be cooks?... The entire process would work the same way it does now - but the individual communities would have the final say on what food actually gets served to the students rather than being mandated by D.C.... How would that not work in today's world?...

Articles from these sources aren't credible either, but I agree with everything else you're saying.

That quote that you reference means nothing. So Putin knew that Trump wanted peace while Hillary is a known war-hawk... How dare he prefer the guy that wants peace. How about the parents who decide every day what they feed their children? You're right, which is the largest disappointment for me personally. He's repealed a fair amount of regulations, but he has also spent a sh*tload more money, which is the opposite of what he campaigned on.

Interesting input for sure. Question regarding mainstream media: What percentage of the "news" that's reported on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc do you feel is actually credible news with verified sources of information without being spun to fit a narrative? I don't need Donald Trump to say anything for me to know that the percentage of actual legitimate reporting is EXTREMELY low... That's irresponsible at best & more likely outright crooked in my view. I'd be interested in what you think on that. As far as social media, yes, there are definitely foreign parties that create fake posts with the intention to stir people up and divide them - Russia is undoubtedly a BIG part of that. And again, the media presents it as Russia trying to influence our election in favor of Trump, but that's not what happened in 2016. It was to create outrage among extremists on both right and left. Other than that, it's mostly boomers like my aunt that share anything that comes across their feed and confirms their viewpoint, without any verification of that info (side note: I always find it funny when in the course of a few hours, she'll share a post blasting socialist programs and another post praising social security). But that's a really tough spot also. I personally don't want Washington or Silicon Valley to determine what's "real news" and decide for me what I can see on my feed. There's got to be ways to combat that other than censorship. It's already an issue on platforms like Youtube and Facebook, and they haven't really done much yet. Regarding our current situation and hopefully answering @knapplc question as well: Say what you want about the framers of the constitution, but our constitution is a masterpiece in regards to historical observation of the inevitable slide toward tyranny that ALL governments are subject to. The governmental structure that was set up 250ish years ago was to ensure that the executive branch doesn't have too much power. Over the past hundred years or so (probably longer) we've seen that balance of power erode gradually to the point where the president can use an executive order and bypass congress on issues of HUGE significance. So the people that think Trump is abusing his power should take a long look in the mirror and wonder why ANY president should be able to have so much authority - it should be near irrelevant who the president is. The government as a whole has grown excessively bureaucratic, and the scope of the federal government has grown FAR too large. The Dept of Education is a perfect example. No Child Left Behind has done extensive damage to the quality of education in this country (hand-in-hand with standardized testing & funding being tied to them), and there's absolutely no reason the federal government should be able to mandate what foods can & can't be served in a school lunch room. Then we could delve into the issue of government guaranteed student loans... The DOE has done infinitely more harm than good, and that case could be made for nearly every department at the federal government. And finally, regarding the lack of faith in the intelligence agencies and other institutions, do you really feel that people feel that way because of Trump?... Even after the intelligence agencies lied about WMDs in the middle east so people would support going to war? Even seeing how federal courts, universities, and intelligence agencies have become infiltrated with leftist ideologues? I know that convo could get into the weeds quickly.... I just absolutely don't see Trump as the source of the problems - he's merely a result, and his election is a statement by much of the population that's fed up with career politicians, the political establishment, political correctness, and the overreaching nature of the government at-large (and also that people would rather vote for a guy who's being accused by 20 women of sexual assault than Hillary Clinton ). I'm interested to hear your thoughts, BRB

Thanks for the response to the question. We're undoubtedly in a challenging time in the country. News sources don't actually report news - they all have panels of people trying to force their opinions on their viewers. Fake or exaggerated facts run rampant on social media, most of which is intended to inspire outrage and division. And to top it off, people today have an all time low amount of faith in their institutions. Then we get to the Trump conundrum. I see a lot of people on the left point to Trump as a source of many of these problems, but I see Trump as a result of them - a retaliation. The government was in rough shape long before Trump got there. Do you see it this way @NM11046?

Yes!

I'm not going to take the time to methodically go through every point in your response other than to say that your interpretation of what I'm saying is incorrect. And yeah, that makes me cringe also when people say Trump was sent by God...

I laughed. Thanks for that. Why?

I've already stated where I stand on the Ukraine issue. I understand I'm on a bit of an island and that's fine. If Dems wish to die on that hill, I wish them luck.

You are fighting the strawman of "A small government will be absent of corruption." That's not what I said. ALL governments in human history are corrupt, without exception. The question is: "At what scale would you like corruption to occur?"

That's not what I said.