The Trump Presidency

[ThunderHorse]

I love it when we randomly agree with people for calling bullshit..

Some other things Piers has spotted as bullshit:

Piers Morgan's 10 Worst Moments

You obvs don't get it. I know Piers sucks, so I guess you could say you betta rekognize GOAT respeckin GOAT.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

@TLDR20's comments on the state of manufacturing and low-paying jobs is the conventional wisdom of economists - both left and right of center. I haven't seen a single credible academic source arguing any of the PE's policies will do what he has promised.

But, the argument he made to the electorate - and it worked - was 'what the fuck do those guys know, this is what's going to happen.' We'll see in the coming years. But the pretense it's 'disingenuous' to believe the experts when they predict something - I don't agree with that.

Still, doesn't mean the experts can't be wrong - and doesn't mean it's impossible for the PE's promises to become a reality. I hope they do - but I don't believe they will. I mean, the polling and political experts almost universally believed polling indicated HRC would win the election - and again largely on the left and right (though there were certainly outliers on the right) - and look how that turned out.

Well yeah, because what the "experts" have been pushing for the last quarter century has been working great. Right?

I get it, I really do. I think it's going to be close to 2020, before we know, one way or the other. HRC didn't win, the establishment is out, maybe we wI'll all be fucked because of it. I kinda doubt it, but I'm willing to sit back and watch.

 

[Etype]

@TLDR20's comments on the state of manufacturing and low-paying jobs is the conventional wisdom of economists - both left and right of center. I haven't seen a single credible academic source arguing any of the PE's policies will do what he has promised.

But, the argument he made to the electorate - and it worked - was 'what the fuck do those guys know, this is what's going to happen.' We'll see in the coming years. But the pretense it's 'disingenuous' to believe the experts when they predict something - I don't agree with that.

Conventional wisdom has us backsliding.

A credible academic source? Academia is pretty far to the left side of the spectrum these days.

Trump is known in the business world for finishing on time and under budget. Trump has no political experience.

Hilary has no known or quantifiable political achievements, and her business is comprised of high priced speeches and overseas politician donations.

Obama is known for wealth redistribution (stimulus) and a failed health care bill, again, with no notable business success.


1. How would Trump make things worse than Obama?

2. How would Hillary do better than Trump?

Libs talk about how bad life is going to be under Trump, but can't realistically quantify or qualify how Hillary would've been any better.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Wow.

There is nothing in the article that I could not have written made up and published. For those wondering what "fake news" is? Here you go....

'US officials warn Israel on transferring information to Trump White House'

US Intelligence officials warned their Israeli counterparts to “be careful” when transferring intelligence to the White House after Donald Trump becomes president, an Israeli newspaper reported.
Top-classified information from Israel could be leaked to Russia and from there shared with Russia’s close ally Iran, the officials warned, Yediot Aharonot reported Thursday.

 

[TLDR20]

Again, looking into bullshit. Again, not having any understanding of vaccines or the science behind them. This guy is a fucking piece of work. Think about how many people may now think vaccines are unsafe because of him. How many children may go unvaccinated because of stupid parents thinking "the President is concerned".

This is clown shoes.
Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just made pediatricians’ jobs a lot harder

 

[Etype]

Again, looking into bullshit. Again, not having any understanding of vaccines or the science behind them. This guy is a fucking piece of work. Think about how many people may now think vaccines are unsafe because of him. How many children may go unvaccinated because of stupid parents thinking "the President is concerned".

This is clown shoes.
Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just made pediatricians’ jobs a lot harder

The author says that his life just became a lot harder.

Just implies that it happened in the recent past.

The good doctor then says-

The work of every medical provider for children is likely to become more difficult..

He then states that it, "...is likely...", admitting that it is nothing but speculation.

This is exactly what I meant when I talked about a political shill network. Some random pediatrician speculates on a possible outcome, the WaPo writes up a headline as though it's a fact, and all the little parrots on the internet repeat it.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Trump is being set up for impeachment proceedings during his first year in office.

I would be surprised to learn Trump was being "set up" to be impeached during his first year.

I would not be surprised to see Trump impeached during his first year.

 

[Gunz]

I would be surprised to learn Trump was being "set up" to be impeached during his first year.

I would not be surprised to see Trump impeached during his first year.

Let's call it "laying the groundwork."

 

[TLDR20]

The author says that his life just became a lot harder.

Just implies that it happened in the recent past.

The good doctor then says-

He then states that it, "...is likely...", admitting that it is nothing but speculation.

This is exactly what I meant when I talked about a political shill network. Some random pediatrician speculates on a possible outcome, the WaPo writes up a headline as though it's a fact, and all the little parrots on the internet repeat it.

A healthcare providers responsibility is to their patients, and using evidence to treat those patients. I don't even know how to respond to your post. It is not shilling to say that this is fucking absurd.

 

[Etype]

A healthcare providers responsibility is to their patients, and using evidence to treat those patients. I don't even know how to respond to your post. It is not shilling to say that this is fucking absurd.

Nothing has happened! A pediatrician in Texas speculates and suddenly, "... bullshit...This guy is a fucking piece of work... This is clown shoes.".

You want to talk about patients and providers? Replacing the ACA couldn't possibly go wrong with what a train wreck that is.

Now we've gone from private intelligence firms to a random pediatrician in Texas- you folks have scraped through the bottom of the barrel and are now digging in the dirt.

 

[TLDR20]

Nothing has happened! A pediatrician in Texas speculates and suddenly, "... bullshit...This guy is a fucking piece of work... This is clown shoes.".

You want to talk about patients and providers? Replacing the ACA couldn't possibly go wrong with what a train wreck that is.

Now we've gone from private intelligence firms to a random pediatrician in Texas- you folks have scraped through the bottom of the barrel and are now digging in the dirt.

I disagree.

When the PE has said that he thinks vaccines cause autism, which is not true AT ALL, and then directs a commission to look into it, it is relevant. It isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, it is bringing up relevant worries.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Again, looking into bullshit. Again, not having any understanding of vaccines or the science behind them. This guy is a fucking piece of work. Think about how many people may now think vaccines are unsafe because of him. How many children may go unvaccinated because of stupid parents thinking "the President is concerned".

This is clown shoes.
Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just made pediatricians’ jobs a lot harder

And when the CDC doesn't change the vaccine schedule...we'll call this shit retarded. Call me when the bill hits congress.

 

[amlove21]

1. How would Trump make things worse than Obama?

2. How would Hillary do better than Trump?

Libs talk about how bad life is going to be under Trump, but can't realistically quantify or qualify how Hillary would've been any better.

. Trolling. You are the only person on this thread still talking about Hillary.

The author says that his life just became a lot harder.

Just implies that it happened in the recent past.

The good doctor then says-

He then states that it, "...is likely...", admitting that it is nothing but speculation.

This is exactly what I meant when I talked about a political shill network. Some random pediatrician speculates on a possible outcome, the WaPo writes up a headline as though it's a fact, and all the little parrots on the internet repeat it.

. We know, we know- there are no news organizations that can be trusted. No government agencies get your stamp of approval. Everyone is against you and the GOP, everyone is a liar.

Nothing has happened! A pediatrician in Texas speculates and suddenly, "... bullshit...This guy is a fucking piece of work... This is clown shoes.".

You want to talk about patients and providers? Replacing the ACA couldn't possibly go wrong with what a train wreck that is.

Now we've gone from private intelligence firms to a random pediatrician in Texas- you folks have scraped through the bottom of the barrel and are now digging in the dirt.

. More trolling. Looking forward to hearing some actual facts on the ACA repeal and a plan.

 

[ThunderHorse]

 

[TLDR20]

And when the CDC doesn't change the vaccine schedule...we'll call this shit retarded. Call me when the bill hits congress.

Dude. Do you not understand the power of public perception? You keep referring to how dumb people are. People do not understand how vaccines work. They don't understand why so many are needed so early. When the fucking PE is talking about how the schedule causes autism, and is commissioning a committee to research it, that alone can have profound effects.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Dude. Do you not understand the power of public perception? You keep referring to how dumb people are. People do not understand how vaccines work. They don't understand why so many are needed so early. When the fucking PE is talking about how the schedule causes autism, and is commissioning a committee to research it, that alone can have profound effects.

I get your point and then I say, hey, healthcare provider, educate your patients and customers about why. Explain to them the chance of their child dying is significantly higher without the shot than it is for them to get Autism. You know, spread the knowledge.

There was some Paleo chick that I followed on Facebook that doesn't believe in vaccines apparently, and I was like wtf. Apparently being Paleo now means being against vaccines. People are dumb, and their sheep. As a person with knowledge, it's your job to aid in their ever on going education.

ETA:
I'm obsessed with data, I wear a fitness watch so I know what my heart rate is, how well I slept, how strenuous my workouts were, I log all of my lifts on a plan, I count my calories, I had performance labs taken and I found out I had Low T, so I adjusted my training and it came up.

So the more information people have, the more educated they are to make decisions, and here's the thing, I'll bet every single one of his kids is vaccinated.

 

[Il Duce]

Conventional wisdom has us backsliding.

A credible academic source? Academia is pretty far to the left side of the spectrum these days.

Trump is known in the business world for finishing on time and under budget. Trump has no political experience.

Hilary has no known or quantifiable political achievements, and her business is comprised of high priced speeches and overseas politician donations.

Obama is known for wealth redistribution (stimulus) and a failed health care bill, again, with no notable business success.


1. How would Trump make things worse than Obama?

2. How would Hillary do better than Trump?

Libs talk about how bad life is going to be under Trump, but can't realistically quantify or qualify how Hillary would've been any better.

This is the kind of shit that makes it virtually impossible to have any sort of conversation.

Academia is liberal, so anything from academics - especially if it's widely accepted can't be right. So that means social science, the scientific method, peer-reviewed study, all that evidence-based reasoning is out because you feel like everyone is 'biased.' I don't really think there's anything I can say to that. It implies you don't really accept any basis for conclusions other than what you 'feel' like is true.

I don't think that's what Trump is known for in the business world at all. When you look at the PE's business record his reputation in the business world is for marketing, licensing his name, and earlier in his career being excellent at negotiating his debt - i.e. not paying back everything he owes. Of course, I'm basing what I think PE Trump is 'known' for from reading journalistic accounts of his exploits - where journalists interview people, look at the public record, make sense of the data, and put together a narrative story. But, since journalism is another 'liberal' endeavor and nothing in any media can be taken seriously - unless of course it confirms your existing views - there's no way for me to make this argument either.

The same thing for HRC and President Obama. There's certainly more people - based on their political disposition - who would make your same statements of opinion. But, neither of those opinions is a very fair or comprehensive analysis of those political figures. But, those types of analyses come from using the very methods in academia and journalism you reject. Public policy experts have speculated endlessly about the consequences of the PE's policies - especially in the areas of trade, healthcare, and foreign policy. There's shit-tons of quantified and qualified assessments of the consequences of the PEs policies - though in fairness they are speculation. I prefer informed speculation from experts - but if you reject the very title of expert (or things like experience or scholarship as making experts) - then those are going to have no effect on you.

 

[Etype]

. We know, we know- there are no news organizations that can be trusted. No government agencies get your stamp of approval. Everyone is against you and the GOP, everyone is a liar.

I didn't say they couldn't be trusted. I said one pediatrician speculated to the negative and a news outlet wrote it up as a fact that had already occurred.

You've degenerated to the same level as your news outlets by completely misconstruing words to fit your narrative.

This is the kind of shit that makes it virtually impossible to have any sort of conversation.

Academia is liberal, so anything from academics - especially if it's widely accepted can't be right. So that means social science, the scientific method, peer-reviewed study, all that evidence-based reasoning is out because you feel like everyone is 'biased.' I don't really think there's anything I can say to that. It implies you don't really accept any basis for conclusions other than what you 'feel' like is true.

I don't think that's what Trump is known for in the business world at all. When you look at the PE's business record his reputation in the business world is for marketing, licensing his name, and earlier in his career being excellent at negotiating his debt - i.e. not paying back everything he owes. Of course, I'm basing what I think PE Trump is 'known' for from reading journalistic accounts of his exploits - where journalists interview people, look at the public record, make sense of the data, and put together a narrative story. But, since journalism is another 'liberal' endeavor and nothing in any media can be taken seriously - unless of course it confirms your existing views - there's no way for me to make this argument either.

The same thing for HRC and President Obama. There's certainly more people - based on their political disposition - who would make your same statements of opinion. But, neither of those opinions is a very fair or comprehensive analysis of those political figures. But, those types of analyses come from using the very methods in academia and journalism you reject. Public policy experts have speculated endlessly about the consequences of the PE's policies - especially in the areas of trade, healthcare, and foreign policy. There's shit-tons of quantified and qualified assessments of the consequences of the PEs policies - though in fairness they are speculation. I prefer informed speculation from experts - but if you reject the very title of expert (or things like experience or scholarship as making experts) - then those are going to have no effect on you.

If you folks stopped having such a negative emotional response to Trump's election, folks like me would stop trolling you.

However, you insist on scraping through 'academic' and 'news' sources to find something negative.

Eta- I originally stated supporting Trump due to lack of options.

At this juncture, I have decided I will be trolling Trump haters for a minimum of 4 years.

 

[ThunderHorse]

This is the kind of shit that makes it virtually impossible to have any sort of conversation.

Academia is liberal, so anything from academics - especially if it's widely accepted can't be right. So that means social science, the scientific method, peer-reviewed study, all that evidence-based reasoning is out because you feel like everyone is 'biased.' I don't really think there's anything I can say to that. It implies you don't really accept any basis for conclusions other than what you 'feel' like is true.

I don't think that's what Trump is known for in the business world at all. When you look at the PE's business record his reputation in the business world is for marketing, licensing his name, and earlier in his career being excellent at negotiating his debt - i.e. not paying back everything he owes. Of course, I'm basing what I think PE Trump is 'known' for from reading journalistic accounts of his exploits - where journalists interview people, look at the public record, make sense of the data, and put together a narrative story. But, since journalism is another 'liberal' endeavor and nothing in any media can be taken seriously - unless of course it confirms your existing views - there's no way for me to make this argument either.

The same thing for HRC and President Obama. There's certainly more people - based on their political disposition - who would make your same statements of opinion. But, neither of those opinions is a very fair or comprehensive analysis of those political figures. But, those types of analyses come from using the very methods in academia and journalism you reject. Public policy experts have speculated endlessly about the consequences of the PE's policies - especially in the areas of trade, healthcare, and foreign policy. There's shit-tons of quantified and qualified assessments of the consequences of the PEs policies - though in fairness they are speculation. I prefer informed speculation from experts - but if you reject the very title of expert (or things like experience or scholarship as making experts) - then those are going to have no effect on you.

The economics professors I had that were pure econ nerds were liberal as well you know what...the CPA dudes were conservative and didn't teach the same stuff. But in the larger colleges, the CPA types end up only teaching the business courses and not the Economics 201 course.

 

[Dienekes]

The economics professors I had that were pure econ nerds were liberal as well you know what...the CPA dudes were conservative and didn't teach the same stuff. But in the larger colleges, the CPA types end up only teaching the business courses and not the Economics 201 course.

So? Running a business is different than understanding the narrative of converging and diverging economic trends. Economics is much more complicated than the supply and demand curves of certain products that is typically taught in Intro to Economics courses.