TheodoricFriede wrote:Huh...
So im guessing now probably isnt a good time to mention that i make a lemonade type drink called switchel that is literally just sugar, water, and apple cider vinegar.
Apple cider vinegar is the least offensive one I know of, actually. I wouldn't drink your switchel, obviously, but my aunt made a rib sauce with it two years back and I didn't even register the vinegar content, which is very rare.
Someone With Mass wrote:Have you done an allergy test, at least? Take it from someone who has food allergies, they come in all shapes and sizes.
Would an allergy only manifest as a strong aversion to scent and immediate vomiting upon consumption? Otherwise, once it's down, I have no problem digesting vinegar that I can recall. It's all in the taste/scent.
Croatsky wrote:I guess it helps that US political parties have vastly different political programs.
In Croatia, both social democrats and conservatives have almost identical fiscal program with only some social issues being different. Why is everyone trying to out-poplist the other side?
US elections are varied and a fun trainwreck to watch.
Kind of. In theory, their platforms are focused on very different ideas and policies. In practice, we're at a sort of trained equilibrium right now, where the vast majority of the population is going to be within the moderate range of either party, or Independent. So serious pushes to actually implement party platforms are necessarily watered down into something more moderate so they can actually win elections.
Example:
Ideal -> Republican platform calls for smaller government, delegating more powers to the state and local authorities to better serve their populations and minimize waste from overreaching programs.
Reality -> That means the people at the top willingly giving up power and wealth, so any specifics policies need to be tweaked and tweaked and tweaked, until it becomes "We'll give you $X to handle problem Y, but it comes with enough strings attached to strangle a horse." Plus natural power creep in a changing world. Case of everyone agreeing on a good idea, but no one willing to make the sacrifice to start it.
Point -> It's a paradox anyway, since in order to have the means to force a smaller fed, you'd have to vote in a ridiculous amount of Republicans into office, which would only incentive them to not shrink their new kingdom's powers anyway.
Ideal -> Democrat platform calls for the end of discriminatory hiring practices, so all Americans can have equal opportunity for success.
Reality -> That means government gets to tell businesses small enough to not have a team of lawyers and accountants who they get to hire, because the big guys own the politicians, and thus the problem is solved because we can see not-white not-men marched around in PR moments.
Point -> Feel good platitudes matter more than actual results, and the ongoing existence of discrimination suits the Democrats just fine, since it gets them elected and funded anyway.
See the greater point here?