Donald J. Trump (For everyone else)

What was trump wrong about with tariffs?

What trump policies or ideas are experts unanimously (or even 80+%) against?

I think it is pretty fair to say our government is stupid and insidious. Look at the 3 sectors of our lives they have tried hardest to make better and more affordable: healthcare, education and housing. All 3 have had huge amounts of money dumped into them from the govt and all have grown in price far faster than general inflation making them less and less affordable.

That letter doesn’t say that “BLM protests didn’t increase the spread of covid”. Do you lack reading comprehension? They were saying they don’t condemn them for increasing the spread of covid.

This is literally cherry picking a single instance as representative to why you disqualify all expert and institutional knowledge that disagrees with your world view.

In this instance, those workers did not want their advice to be used to suppress social activism for an unrelated cause. Asking why they didn't similarly stand up for people protesting against their very advice is nonsensical. Also some did but pretty obvious why it would be fewer...

It literally says, in the bold, those gatherings don't increase the spread of covid. And btw check the other claims : those protests being VITAL for black people health? as a SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT? the actual mother****ing ****? even if you want to torture the bolded phrase into meaning what you what it to mean, assessing scientifically that those protests were VITAL FOR PUBLIC HEALTH is a complete dereliction of duty, an insane disgrace, something that properly and correctly leads people like me to know, as a certainty, those people (and anyone who agreed with them) *are not to be trusted ever again about anything*

//

Btw later on, papers were drafted and published about covid actually not increasing because of BLM protests & riots.

Which was technically true except the reason was that people stayed at home a lot more in the areas where the violent rioters gathered to destroy the cities...

Well, he promised that they would result in a huge boost to revenue and a huge boost to U.S. manufacturing. Fans of tariffs are few and far between in the economic sphere, but people who believe that you can use tariffs to simultaneously turn both dials strongly in a positive direction are rarer still.

at least when they go deregulated free market tactics there is a good chance of a fun party before it all implodes. This way is no fun at all!

It’s not a tortured reading because the very next sentence was talking about how to do the protests in such a way as to reduce the spread. How could they be simultaneously claiming to want to have mitigating protocols and that there was nothing to mitigate?

As for the stuff about the protests being vital to public health, I suppose they are subsuming systemic racism as a public health issue, which I agree is equivocation.

Giving you an important example of how i reach the conclusion that leftists in science are bad faith fraudsters isn't "cherry picking". It's an example.

You want more?

The war on vaping by "scientists" (this tends to be bipartisan but the actual scientific production is mostly leftist).

The demonization of ALL "processed meat" as cancerogenic after that silly paper came out (where they tested ALL kinds of processed meat togheter jfc)

The current strongarming about wine purported negative effect on health even in low quantities (the war is raging, but leftists are publishing more and more rubbish about ANY alcohol consumption being damaging torturing data, even if the consensus among experts isn't yet in their favor everywhere).

The inane fraud about the "blind auditioning discrimination" that came out of a badly conducted paper that doesn't replicate and didn't even claim what all leftists later claimed it did.

A ton of climate porn being published (starting with using RCP 8.5 as the baseline scenario)

The incredible **** being published about biological sex and gender identity, the entire field about the latter being a fraudulent endeavor

And so on and on and on

/

Btw i don't "disquality all knowledge that disagrees with my world view".

Examples: low skilled immigrants are terrible for europe (yes even legal ones), provenly so in so many ways. But they aren't for the USA, again provenly so. I just believe the data when properly collected and analized by people who aren't leftists.

Min wage increases at the local level, even when significant in $$ amounts, have far smaller effects that i previously believed and cause minimal disruption to labor markets compared to what i thought. Again something that i would have disagreed with intuitively but when proven the contrary (by non leftists) i can accept as true. Doesn't make me in favour of high min wages, but i cannot claim that if a city increases the local min wage by 3 or 5 dollars per hour, the expected result would be significantly higher unemployment or significantly higher local prices. Because that's not what happened in a big enough sample of cities and localities that did it.

I do not believe for a second that you believe that creating significant uncertainty about tariffs of a large magnitude can ever be good at anything at all for society.

If he had implemented clear tariffs, standing by them, you could theoretically claim we have to wait to see first and second order effects.

But it's 100% certain that doing this embarassing dance of put the tariff / remove the tariff / threaten the tariff / and so on is just terrible for the economy.

A systemic racism which objectively and measurably hasn't happened in the terms protested by BLM, because unarmed blacks aren't killed more than other suspects by police, and while an uneducated low iq protester might not know it, a public health scientist should know it.

Getting people on the right to drive electric cars while simultaneously getting people on the left to burn them is quite a rare achievement to unlock.

So the answer is lack reading comprehension then. Gotcha.

It does not say what you claim it says. It says they do not condemn them as risky, not they are not risky. Yes, those are different statements.

If I said I do not condemn someone for killing a deer, that does not mean I don't think they killed a deer.

This one is just bizarre. Where the hell are you getting that this was their "SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT" that is making you so outraged?

So are we moving away from your original claim they were saying that covid can’t spread at a BLM protest?

No, i am adding to it. They didn't claim "covid can't spread", they claimed those protests didn't increase the spread of covid.

???? what???

They are not saying that at all. They are saying to be safe but that covid measures dont over rule the importance of their cause.

Also "they" is a tiny group of free minded individuals with a public opinion. Not an oppressive leftist cabal that exists only in your paranoia

No, they didn't. I don't know if this is a language issue or you really do just have poor reading comprehension, but they absolutely did not.

That would be after the fact, clearly not before. Also you just said that they were right for the wrong reasons. something can decrease the spread of covid and still be bad. shooting everyone in the face would certainly decrease the spread of covid.

Cool video that no one is ever going to watch.

Bump since lucy is back to his natural posting rate.

That Americans don't pay them.

Currently using the White House to try to prop up Tesla.

Nothing to see here. Just destruction of evidence.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/usaid-staff-instructed-to-shred-or-burn-classified-safe-documents/

cbsnews

USAID staff instructed to clear out classified safes and shred or burn documents