@Matthew Lol... it must be nice to be missed. :P

To be fair, after Trump took Kennedy into his team I was happy to see him win

Forget all the economics and stuff

There is much lying and corruption around healthcare in the US... and it could be fixed. Kennedy is very interested in making healthcare actually better and not just in the "lame" "oh it is cheaper" or "oh it is free" nonsense way. But in a way that actually will have long term benefits

Seeing Musk getting a department of government efficiency is just gonna be fun to watch, I gotta buy more popcorn

And back to the economy... I mean, Literally the entire market went "god candle" on the 6th

even the stock for the company I work at went up 16% for no real apparent reason other then Trump won

I don't have any of that stock, but i have some tesla and that is fun to see near $300 and crypto is up insanely at the news. (Chart analysis said now as well, fun when things match up)

Everything is on the up, and honestly I want to move back to the states now

@Wyrsa I thought you live in the States?

@Wyrsa I just hope he doesn't make important agencies like FBI or FDA or SEC or FTC lose their effectiveness or become a tool for politicians who happen to be in power like how Twitter came to be, but have objective and long term public interests at heart, the true meaning of "govern". Education department can go; should be at most state level agency.

@Wyrsa Do you have data to back this up? Having lived in both the US and Canada, I can see US is way better: long wait time for a procedure and shortage of doctors (not to mention good doctors) in Canada, even though cost is a lot cheaper. And it seems invention in drugs, medical devices, and new procedures originate in the USA, they being the beneficiary of the higher cost (so it goes to somewhere productive, rather than simply lining the stockholder's pockets).

@GratefulDisciple Nope, I just relate to the states more then elsewhere. Actually in Germany...

@GratefulDisciple Considering the corruption within those various agencies... I would except some massive house cleaning, a period of chaos, a period of reorganization, and then a period of improvement and people accepting it as better now

@GratefulDisciple Most of Kennedy's campaign for president was "Make America Healthy Again"

he spoke at length about how all of these pharma companies basically tested s**t out on people and had no legal repercussions

mental health is a bad subject in the states, but getting better

etc

All the inventions are in the USA, almost.

But what is the value, if the population is the test subject?

I hate wait times for the socialist style healthcare here in Germany... the U.K. isn't known for being fast... Canada is terrible, yes.

I'm not that heavy into conspiracy theories, but why is the documentation about a vaccine reddacted?

(german one is anyways)

nytimes.com/2024/11/06/us/politics/…

RFKjr claims he would clear out entire departments...

Kennedy Jr. ... “I will change those incentives and unravel the culture of corruption that now has turned these agencies against public health...."

@Wyrsa That's right. I remember you shared with me the church that you go to.

@Wyrsa I'm fine with house cleaning. My worry is house cleaning done by someone who doesn't know what he's doing. RFK doesn't have any background in public health and both he and Trump seems to vilify Fauci who does have the right background. Whether the vilification is justified, unfortunately I'm not qualified to determine, which is my biggest concern how politicians can get away with misinformation if they appeal to emotions and half truths.

@Wyrsa That article is quite balanced (have 2 views) and has lots of details. So I want answers to questions from the other view. On paper the 3 goals is of course good; the question is how to execute them. Too much lies.

@Wyrsa I happen to know a little bit about clinical testing of drugs (from members of my extended family). Drug pharma have strict protocols (regulated by FDA), measured outcome, procedures for animal testing first, and transparency to track side effects. I doubt that the conspiracy theories you're hearing are grounded in reality.

@Wyrsa What of it? Never heard about that one. And remember. FDA is the main stakeholder for vaccine testing and all the pharmas need to submit their testing result to FDA, so if FDA is gutted or reformed in the name of "house cleaning" but ends up LESS effective to do this job, or worse, has less integrity to demand vendor neutrality (i.e. merit based), then this is a politician lie of CLAIMING to deliver one goal but ACTUALLY make it worse.

One agency that I hope they don't touch is NTSB. They do excellent job in maintaining aviation safety and their accident investigation methods is top notch. I had fun reading their reports. Again, if a politician (in the name of protecting American manufacturers) give a pass to Boeing and turn the other eye on their quality control, this is bad news for us.

Not sure whether NTSB is responsible for Boeing's declining quality, though, for sure, those recent failures are investigated well, leading to multiple groundings of the 737-9 MAX.

Before I climb down from my soap box, one final remark: NEVER TRUST A POLITICIAN (or an freelancing pastor / televangelist for that matter). Verify. Verify. Verify.

@GratefulDisciple While most politicians are in the unenviable position of having to come up with a perfect result, with imperfect information flooding through their limited mental capacity. (even a genius will struggle here)

ontheissues.org/2024/Robert_F__Kennedy_Jr__Health_Care.htm

Here are some quotes on the subject of health care, for example the FDA is great in concept, but why is 75% of the budget for the FDA from pharmaceutical companies? Man that definitely doesn't ever mess up anything...

For example... I agree with him on the subject of royalties from products, should not be given to the people regulating them. (NIH officials apparently do get some money here for products that do get released... that's not a risk factor for public safety... right?)

He doesn't have to be a doctor, he just needs to be able to process information properly as a politician.

We don't need to be a doctor to look at how healthful people used to be, compared to today. Something is wrong is not a bad position to be in. And maybe some anti corruption is a good thing

The royalties for drugs that get passed for people in the NIH... that's like people in congress being able to own stocks, gee... if you pass laws and regulations maybe you shouldn't have a financial interest in it...

I don't agree on every issue he has, but he has the proper goal.

Kinda like Trump, I don't agree with him on everything but at least the goal is something positive.

And otherwise, lets stay away from conspiracy theories.

lol, it would be too easy to get sucked into endless rabbit holes.

@Wyrsa Before I say anything, I want to say that I like you: you sound like a genuine lover of Jesus and His church, you respect other's opinions, you say you don't know when you don't know something, you don't exaggerate, etc. I like your posts because they are objective and bring in writings and perspective that are lacking in C.SE, partly because you're EO but just the general thrust of your inquiring mind. I want my liking to not ever to change.

@Wyrsa No. They do not have to come up with a perfect result. They just need to TRY to tell the truth and be honest of what they don't know and rely on those that know. Politicians by nature is a salesman who by necessity needs to exaggerate, appeal to emotion, make contrasts to their opponents. I accept that.

While Kamala is more sneaky in her more "civilized" campaign, what bothers me the most from Trump is that he doesn't even TRY, actually he makes DOUBLE DOWN a virtue instead of admitting he did wrong, he lied, or made a mistake. As someone habitually lies, as your answer suggests "you corrupt the structure that you use to interact with Being". And he blamed others who capitulated in the justice system who didn't double down as he did.

So yes, a politician doesn't have to be expert in the area; no one can in this complex world. But he needs to get some grasp of the reality he is governing, and have a good vision to work toward, while acknowledging the political reality where he needs to reward his political contributors sometimes by giving them indirect business advantages. I accept that.

But to vilify experts for trying to do their job well? Trump has a roster of experts that he fired "as not loyal" and falsely claim them to be "incompetent" just because they refused to go along with what they justly deem not good for the country. Why not being honest to say: "I fire you because you have a different vision than I do, and I will give you good references for your next position"?

Going with my policy that I am the authority of the last resort for my own beliefs, when I don't agree with a church's theology then I "fire them" (by going to another church), but I don't vilify them (unless they are blatantly unorthodox and evil like prosperity gospel churches).

@Wyrsa Thanks for this. Obviously, I have time, I would need to fact check it since the sources are not peer reviewed academic articles, but Fox News who is complicit in spreading misinformation until they are told to pay billions of dollars for propagating claims that voting machines are rigged.

@Wyrsa This doesn't sound right to me. Obviously need to fact check this. Corruption IS a concern, which if this is true, is an instance of corruption.

@Wyrsa No, not as a politician, but as a manager who recruit competent people in their areas and provide political cover for them to do well in their jobs. There's one thing that my dad told me that stays with me. He asked: "What's the difference between business owner and a CEO?"

Answer: Business owner takes risk (and can be sleepless at nights); going to MBA school for him is counterproductive. He then hires a risk-averse MBA graduate to run his business operations, who comes home unconcerned because he's salaried.

@Wyrsa Goal is positive, of course. I would love for America "to be great again". But he shouldn't sacrifice good institutions for his own benefit. Good politicians can get rich (it's a necessary cost) BUT they have to be good public servants too, and NOT damage the very institutions that have been making America great so far.

@Wyrsa There are rules in place already, part of the vetting process. And those who are elected regularly sold their holdings so there is minimal conflict of interest. From my own experience: one investment banker told me that banks in America nowadays are regulated strictly to SEPARATE the personnel responsible for the investment branch and those responsible for the banking branch, probably as a result of previous financial crash.

And in my own industry (IT), there is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act prohibiting developers from having credentials in the production environment; requiring those who deploy software to be separate personnel.

@GratefulDisciple There is... a strong impression that Fauci's actions during the Pandemic were politically motivated. As for human testing, I don't know about pharma in general, but a lot of the trans movement amounts to gross human experimentation.

@Wyrsa Heh. On the one hand, I could see pharma needing the FDA most. On the other hand, I don't know how to look at that and not wonder if there's conflict-of-interest.

@Wyrsa Honestly, IMHO the best thing we could do for health is to somehow fix how hard (and expensive) it is to eat healthy compared to how much easier and cheaper it is to eat junk. (Pet peeve: why are there no unsweetened beverage options at any restaurant besides water, sometimes coffee, and if you're lucky, tea? Soda is far, far too prevalent.)

@GratefulDisciple Heh, should I take that opening? 🙂

@Matthew If I have time and try to find the truth about Fauci I'll share with you. About pharma, they are all profit motivated of course and will try to get away with anything. That's why we need FDA that is not corrupt and is also science based rather than being influenced by conspiracy theory, interest group, or political lobbying by irrelevant parties other than public health (for example, doctor group expressing concern should be okay).

@Matthew Yes, Canada is big on prevention so I'm all on board with healthy beverages, even with "soda tax" (if they want to implement that). But they are not as prepared with people having problems when they are older. Maybe when I'm older I should move back to the USA.

@Matthew What do you mean? You're running for office? Send me your website, and if I like you I'll vote for you!

@GratefulDisciple No, was referring to the decline of the church's influence. You know where I stand on why that's happening.

I'm not willing to subject myself to the sort of public witch-hunting that's inevitable when running for office. That's why only someone like Trump is capable of being elected outside of the far-left.

BTW, one improvement to Nutrition label (this is FDA work, by the way) that I recently notice is "Added sugar" number. Very shocking but also very relevant for people trying to drink healthy. I cannot believe how much sugar they added to what looks like a healthier drink such as Lemonade and Orange Juice!

@GratefulDisciple Well, lemonade certainly has added sugar. I'm surprised orange juice would, though. Maybe only certain brands?

@Matthew Then as non-elected members of the public we need to fix the electorate so they don't do witch hunting and are NOT susceptible for politicians goading them with half-truths to do egregious stuff like invading the Capitol.

@GratefulDisciple As I think I said earlier, if you have any ideas for how that can happen, please share!

@Matthew Just see the options the next time you visit the grocery. It's sad. Even the "low sugar" option means there's artificial sweetener added, which is ALSO not good. Here's a good article on the danger of sugar: telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/nutrition/…

@Matthew I attribute it more for culture rather than science. Discussion for another day....

Human nature is to love sensationalism, and the far left in particular loves their witch hunts. And censoring it isn't the right answer.

@Matthew I will ! One way is to improve high school education to include philosophy, great books seminars, etc. Thus: reviving classical education.

@GratefulDisciple ...but culture and science don't exist in a vacuum. When "science" is hammering hard at "there is no God", is it surprising that culture starts to imbibe that claim?

@GratefulDisciple Perhaps. How will you get past the stranglehold the far left has on education? 🙂

@Matthew I agree. It's about educating people to think better, analyze better, reason better, wider horizon, more conscious historically, etc.

@Matthew Not sure there's such "stranglehold" though. It's more about parents not active enough in their children's education and willing to take a more active stance in confronting the school principals or through the school boards. (BTW I'm talking about K-12, which is a very different beast than college).

@GratefulDisciple There's a reason I try to limit how much soda I drink. I don't drink "none", but I've known people that drink significantly more than I do. This is related to why I wish there were better options more widely available.

@Matthew When you have critical thinking and philosophical awareness, then other concerns will go away on their own. Fundamentalism in churches where kids are indirectly trained that there is only ONE way to see reality, doesn't help.

@GratefulDisciple K-12 for quite some time has been teaching that God has nothing to do with the world that exists. Now they're teaching pre-teens that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. And giving them porn.

@Matthew One way I do it is simply not to buy soda, and to prepare my food at home rather than going out. Or at least buy healthier frozen food.

@GratefulDisciple What about fundamentalism in public schools? You really believe those aren't teaching kids that only Materialism is valid "science"?

@Matthew There are still plenty of Christian teachers out there, so parents can help them by untying their hands so they can talk about God at school and have the option NOT to teach gender stuff, or at least leave those talks to the parents.

@Matthew I'm fine with schools teaching only "operational science" and not teach anything about evolution, geology, astronomy, etc. until they hit college. That way the K-12 kids are taught how to DO science rather than extending the method to historical science that are so objectionable to you.

@GratefulDisciple BTW, do you really believe that not believing God's Word is acceptable? That's probably not what you meant, but take what you said to its logical conclusion...

@GratefulDisciple ...which is exactly why Materialist indoctrination starts as young as possible. I might be okay with that, but the minute you say "dinosaurs died out millions of years ago", that's teaching Materialism. And it's not just in schools, it's everywhere.

@Matthew What I meant is that kids shouldn't be shielded from the existence of other religions, other philosophies, other worldviews. The church instead presents their theology + worldview as Biblical and the BEST out of other religions and worldviews. What I just described is not the way fundamentalist churches do it.

Anyway, surely even you know the far left would scram bloody murder if you tried...

@GratefulDisciple If you're objecting that they don't teach apologetics, you'll get no argument from me. But churches shouldn't be schools, and most parents unfortunately can't or won't take the time to educate their children.

Actually... home schooling would help a lot.

@Matthew Why do schools need to talk dinosaurs? That's historical science. I'm fine with schools not teaching them dinosaurs. I did NOT learn about dinosaurs when I was in high school, BTW. Everything I learn in high school was operational science. Plenty enough to keep me busy.

@GratefulDisciple They don't, but are you seriously going to censor every mention of dinosaurs, or evolution, in children's books, toys, movies, magazines (e.g. National Geographic), and so forth?

@Matthew In my scheme: churches teach Bible and theology, schools teach philosophy + operational science (and other non-controversial subjects), parents teach spirituality and applying theology + philosophy + science to life.

...and who's teaching historical science from a Scriptural perspective?

@Matthew Parents DO have influence over school boards which in turn DO have influence over the textbooks. Of course one cannot censor those toys / magazines, so that's parents' job.

@Matthew NO ONE! You may not like that answer, but in my scheme, that's it.

Anyway, you can't censor Materialist teachings. To do so, you'd have to censor an unacceptably wide swatch of culture, and in the process, you're leaving kids unprepared to deal with the real world. The only viable solution is to teach apologetics early. Do that, and it won't matter if Materialism gets its say, because they'll be equipped to respond.

(For example, I've been working my way through Heinlein lately. That'd have to be censored. Most sci-fi would have to be censored.)