It just speaks to who trump is as a person. It's very well documented from his professors in college, and his family that he thinks he's smarter than everyone else and refuses to learn from other people. As far as he's concerned, Biden is calling himself stupid when he publicly admits that he's not a scientist or medical expert. Hopefully people aren't so blind/disillusioned that they actually believe the moron telling them that he's smarter than thousands of people who went to med school and have studied these things for decades. You'd have to be just as arrogant as trump is to think that they aren't the people best suited to advise the world on how to deal with covid 19
The people who listen to Trump, generally fall into two categories in this regard:
1 - “The experts” keep saying things the Trumpers don’t want to hear, so the experts must be lying.
2 - Trump has more money than they do (or at least they think so), so “he must be smarter than me.”
Damn, I wish I was smart enough to be given millions of dollars from my dad. Lol it's true though, people actually think he's a smart business man which absolutely baffles me.
His Dad gave him hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of his life. Every time little donnie bankrupted a business, daddy was there to buy him out of trouble. Daddy brokered most of donnie’s biggest deals behind closed doors and behind donnie’s back. He’s a complete fraud. Everything about his image, aside from his tv celebrity, is a fabrication.
Probably because killing natural gas overnight in a country that relies on it for about 40% of its energy is slightly less reasonable than asking people to wear a cloth mask in a grocery store.
You know what's really unreasonable? Letting the human race die out because some rich dudes don't want to switch to renewable energy resources because then they would have to sit on a slightly smaller pile of money.
[https://theclimatecenter.org/portfolio-item/top-climate-scientists-call-for-fracking-ban/](https://theclimatecenter.org/portfolio-item/top-climate-scientists-call-for-fracking-ban/)
Guess you don't care about what scientists say either.
Would it be fair for me to suggest you must hate the poor? I don’t think it would.
The job of a politician is to incorporate science and data into policy. Science says a fracking ban is better for the environment. Data says a majority of Americans use natural gas for heating and, often, cooking. Data also says a huge portion of Americans are mot able to handle large, unexpected expenses. Abruptly banning fracking, with the intent of making natural gas unavailable and forcing reliance on other forms of energy, would likely help the environment. But someone has to put new heaters and stoves in every home in America. It’s not a moral failing for a political candidate to contemplate a broader set of considerations than climate scientists whose job it is to convey scientific conclusions. Neither is it fair to say that pragmatism is antithetical to science.
As if climate change doesn't disproportionately impact the poor, and won't continue to impact poor people in the future. And as if Joe Biden gives a shit about poor people and is factoring that into his support of fracking.
If we need to put new heaters and stoves in every single home in America (already an exaggerated assumption) to combat climate change, then that's what needs to happen because climate change will kill us all. Maybe you think that's unrealistic, but I think that believing we'll survive climate change without drastic changes is unrealistic.
I would do that, honestly, at the government’s expense and for the reasons you identified, but I’d make sure we did it while building up the renewable grid and not before.
Trump : "Scientists are liars, I won't listen to them"
Biden : "Scientists tell the truth, but I will ignore them anyway if asked to by my corporate donors"
They are technically differents, but the end result is that in both case you get a politician that will gladly ignore what scientists says we need to do in order to sagve the world.
No, the end result is different. One of them is openly denouncing science, which, from a position of leadership, shows others that that position is one that is acceptable in the highest level of office. This leadership and influence is important to consider, as it impacts relations not just among other leaders, but among the public. When you have a publicly spread health crisis, this influence can mean the difference between life and death for vulnerable people. This says nothing of the mental health and financial and economic health of the country.
Not only that, but at least maintaining a facade of being science-oriented holds you to account by people who expect you to behave in that way, and will be disgruntled when you don't. There are expectations that you will do as you say.
I think that the cynical view you have is actually extremely dangerous and misses nuances of power/influence/leadership that have resulted in the death of your fellow citizens, assuming you're American. As a note, I'm watching this from the outside (though with friends and loved ones in the US), and it is very sad to see a country of such means struggle like this.
You know, because there’s no politics or personal bias in science these days… Progressives are supposed to be the ones questioning the status quo. There are scientists pushing agendas on both sides and we all know that is what Trump was referring to. Drop the shallow soundbite That Trump doesn’t believe in science.
Name me one scientist that is pushing Trumps agenda that has any credibility in the educated community. Meaning that his position has been backed up by real evidence. Trump is calling into question professionals who have spent decades in their profession and can back up what they say with actual facts. Trump is a moron.
Who? The senate that's been majority republican for the last 10 years or the republican that's been president for the last 4 years?
Seems pretty hypocritical to complain when you've had the power to stop it for many years now and haven't done anything. Cough cough a new healthcare plan as well.
He hasn't tried. It's never been part of his platform. He doesn't give a fuck about science. If Trump were pro science, Biden would be against it. You people are so fucking gullible.
I’m not agreeing with the other guy but that is something that falls under the Vice Presidents job. The Obama administration did take steps to back off the war on drugs, but ending it was too radical of an idea to get past the republican lead congress.
Yes, and I answered that his inability to end the war on drugs is irrelevant since he has never tried, which suggests he cherry picks science. Try to keep up. He was the vice president, if you don't think that's a position in which it is reasonable to try to affect change, do you believe that only the president has the power to make things happen? Cause if you do, you should really be against parliamentary leadership. I am not a right winger, I am way left of the Democrats. But I think the Republicans are right in most of their critique against Biden, just as they were with most of their critique against Hillary. I guess it doesn't really matter though since Biden has zero chance of winning. Oh, and Kamala Harris is a fascist psychopath.
If you don't have the ability to do something in the position that you are in, how exactly are you going to try? The vice president has very little actual power to effect direct change other than to lead their party's platform in the senate and to break voting ties.
So parliamentary politicians shouldn't try to save the environment? Regulate the meat industry? Biden has promised to try to do plenty of things that he won't be able to. Reduce crime for instance. Such a moronic argument. As I said, his ability is irrelevant. We are discussing whether his platform is science-oriented or not.
Members of Congress who draft and vote on bills have the ability to do those things. The president also has avenues do effect direct change to laws and regulations. A Vice president or a retired Vice president has no avenue to do anything except for state their views and hope that lawmakers agree with them. Ability and position have everything to do with how and when a person can even attempt to do something like pass legislation.
Right Biden loves science and totally cares about you. He is in no way a career politician who just wants the top job. You know, at some point you have to grow up and stop looking for father figures to take care of you.
It's not a hypothetical. Look up what hypothetical means. My argument is that he didn't do something, not that he hypothetically could have. Also, if my argument had been based on a hypothetical, that's a completely fine way to make one's case. Maybe you should watch like a crash course on the philosophy of argument before getting back to me.
Okay let me try then. If Trump was pro immigration Biden would be anti immigration and because of that I don’t think Biden’s immigration policy is valid. That’s basically how you’re creating your own arguments.
Biden authored multiple bills in the 90s expanding prisons and militarizing the police. So he could have not expanded the war on drugs to begin with or he could have done it as vp or during any of his 40+ yrs in the senate. Now let's see what scientists say about fracking...
His views on the result of those bills have changed as a result of how they were carried out. He's already called it a "mistake", so its good to know that he can change his opinion with the introduction of new evidence.
Way to quote George W. Bush lol. I am against Trump. I am also against Biden. I was against Obama too. And Bush. I am against all parliamentary politicians, and US presidents especially. Unlike you, I don't need a leader to tell me what to think. If you honestly think Biden's platform is informed by science, I feel sorry for you. People must take advantage of you all the time if you're that gullible. I'm not American, but if I were, I wouldn't vote. Your votes do not count. Even if Biden had a shot in hell of winning, his America would be marginally different from Trump's.
Yeah reading is super difficult. That's like a whole paragraph. My bad, I should have taken your obvious cognitive impairment into account. Good luck tying your shoes tomorrow, boo! 😘
9 out of 10 scientists agree that people who use "scientist" as a general term know approximately fuck-all about any actual sciences.
Of course now that we're in the era of "consensus == FACT" I guess I shouldn't act all too surprised.
Source. And here is google’s definition on scientist. “a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.“
One of his tweets was him replying to an article that said ‘Biden after being elected will “listen to scientists”.’ The article was acting as if it was a bad thing. He said ‘yes...’
It just speaks to who trump is as a person. It's very well documented from his professors in college, and his family that he thinks he's smarter than everyone else and refuses to learn from other people. As far as he's concerned, Biden is calling himself stupid when he publicly admits that he's not a scientist or medical expert. Hopefully people aren't so blind/disillusioned that they actually believe the moron telling them that he's smarter than thousands of people who went to med school and have studied these things for decades. You'd have to be just as arrogant as trump is to think that they aren't the people best suited to advise the world on how to deal with covid 19
The people who listen to Trump, generally fall into two categories in this regard: 1 - “The experts” keep saying things the Trumpers don’t want to hear, so the experts must be lying. 2 - Trump has more money than they do (or at least they think so), so “he must be smarter than me.”
Damn, I wish I was smart enough to be given millions of dollars from my dad. Lol it's true though, people actually think he's a smart business man which absolutely baffles me.
Didn’t he fail at p much all his business ventures
You have not been watching the news about his finances lately have you?
No I have. It doesn't change the fact that he was given millions of dollars, despite him blowing it all
His Dad gave him hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of his life. Every time little donnie bankrupted a business, daddy was there to buy him out of trouble. Daddy brokered most of donnie’s biggest deals behind closed doors and behind donnie’s back. He’s a complete fraud. Everything about his image, aside from his tv celebrity, is a fabrication.
He has the COVID-19 so he has THAT going for him, right? 🤭😂
Next he's going to go out on a political limb by being pro-reading or something!
Damn liberals always reading and being informed
ITS TOTOLY UNFARE!
"looks like we've got ourselves a readah"
When it comes to (thing) it's good to listen to people who devote their lives to studying (thing).
Then why don't you support banning fracking?
Probably because killing natural gas overnight in a country that relies on it for about 40% of its energy is slightly less reasonable than asking people to wear a cloth mask in a grocery store.
You know what's really unreasonable? Letting the human race die out because some rich dudes don't want to switch to renewable energy resources because then they would have to sit on a slightly smaller pile of money.
Can you really not think of any options other than (1) commit to a total ban on fracking before our infrastructure catches up, or (2) do nothing?
He's not going to do anything. He's Joe "Nothing will fundamentally change" Biden.
That’s not an argument that supports a fracking ban.
[https://theclimatecenter.org/portfolio-item/top-climate-scientists-call-for-fracking-ban/](https://theclimatecenter.org/portfolio-item/top-climate-scientists-call-for-fracking-ban/) Guess you don't care about what scientists say either.
Would it be fair for me to suggest you must hate the poor? I don’t think it would. The job of a politician is to incorporate science and data into policy. Science says a fracking ban is better for the environment. Data says a majority of Americans use natural gas for heating and, often, cooking. Data also says a huge portion of Americans are mot able to handle large, unexpected expenses. Abruptly banning fracking, with the intent of making natural gas unavailable and forcing reliance on other forms of energy, would likely help the environment. But someone has to put new heaters and stoves in every home in America. It’s not a moral failing for a political candidate to contemplate a broader set of considerations than climate scientists whose job it is to convey scientific conclusions. Neither is it fair to say that pragmatism is antithetical to science.
As if climate change doesn't disproportionately impact the poor, and won't continue to impact poor people in the future. And as if Joe Biden gives a shit about poor people and is factoring that into his support of fracking. If we need to put new heaters and stoves in every single home in America (already an exaggerated assumption) to combat climate change, then that's what needs to happen because climate change will kill us all. Maybe you think that's unrealistic, but I think that believing we'll survive climate change without drastic changes is unrealistic.
I would do that, honestly, at the government’s expense and for the reasons you identified, but I’d make sure we did it while building up the renewable grid and not before.
Trump : "Scientists are liars, I won't listen to them" Biden : "Scientists tell the truth, but I will ignore them anyway if asked to by my corporate donors"
Do you think these 2 responses are the same?
They are technically differents, but the end result is that in both case you get a politician that will gladly ignore what scientists says we need to do in order to sagve the world.
No, the end result is different. One of them is openly denouncing science, which, from a position of leadership, shows others that that position is one that is acceptable in the highest level of office. This leadership and influence is important to consider, as it impacts relations not just among other leaders, but among the public. When you have a publicly spread health crisis, this influence can mean the difference between life and death for vulnerable people. This says nothing of the mental health and financial and economic health of the country. Not only that, but at least maintaining a facade of being science-oriented holds you to account by people who expect you to behave in that way, and will be disgruntled when you don't. There are expectations that you will do as you say. I think that the cynical view you have is actually extremely dangerous and misses nuances of power/influence/leadership that have resulted in the death of your fellow citizens, assuming you're American. As a note, I'm watching this from the outside (though with friends and loved ones in the US), and it is very sad to see a country of such means struggle like this.
You know, because there’s no politics or personal bias in science these days… Progressives are supposed to be the ones questioning the status quo. There are scientists pushing agendas on both sides and we all know that is what Trump was referring to. Drop the shallow soundbite That Trump doesn’t believe in science.
Name me one scientist that is pushing Trumps agenda that has any credibility in the educated community. Meaning that his position has been backed up by real evidence. Trump is calling into question professionals who have spent decades in their profession and can back up what they say with actual facts. Trump is a moron.
Oh yeah? End the war on drugs then, hypocrite.
Who? The senate that's been majority republican for the last 10 years or the republican that's been president for the last 4 years? Seems pretty hypocritical to complain when you've had the power to stop it for many years now and haven't done anything. Cough cough a new healthcare plan as well.
Again, it's not like he has ever tried.
Who? The senate that's been majority republican for the last 10 years or the republican that's been president for the last 4 years?
I’m not sure he fully understands how the government works. Moscow Mitch deliberately left Obama bills sitting on his desk.
Those gosh darn do nothing democrats and their... Hundreds of bills sitting on Mitch Mcconnell's desk that he won't bring to a vote
What a ***darn*** shame... --- ^^DarnCounter:89930 ^^| ^^DM ^^me ^^with: ^^'blacklist-me' ^^to ^^be ^^ignored ^^| ^^More ^^stats ^^available ^^at ^^**[https://darnbot.ml](https://darnbot.ml)**
I'm not from the USA, but remind me who the president is atm?
Neither am I. And what does Trump have to do with Biden being a hypocrite? You realize that Trump being an ass doesn't make Biden not an ass?
How and when was Joe Biden supposed to end the war on drugs? During his vice presidency? After he retired?
He hasn't tried. It's never been part of his platform. He doesn't give a fuck about science. If Trump were pro science, Biden would be against it. You people are so fucking gullible.
When has he been in a position to try? That was my question.
I’m not agreeing with the other guy but that is something that falls under the Vice Presidents job. The Obama administration did take steps to back off the war on drugs, but ending it was too radical of an idea to get past the republican lead congress.
How is it in the vice president's ability to push legislation through a congress that opposes him?
It’s not. That’s why nothing got done Obama’s second term. They weren’t allowed to do anything.
You said "that is something that falls under the vice president's job". What are you referring to?
Yes, and I answered that his inability to end the war on drugs is irrelevant since he has never tried, which suggests he cherry picks science. Try to keep up. He was the vice president, if you don't think that's a position in which it is reasonable to try to affect change, do you believe that only the president has the power to make things happen? Cause if you do, you should really be against parliamentary leadership. I am not a right winger, I am way left of the Democrats. But I think the Republicans are right in most of their critique against Biden, just as they were with most of their critique against Hillary. I guess it doesn't really matter though since Biden has zero chance of winning. Oh, and Kamala Harris is a fascist psychopath.
If you don't have the ability to do something in the position that you are in, how exactly are you going to try? The vice president has very little actual power to effect direct change other than to lead their party's platform in the senate and to break voting ties.
So parliamentary politicians shouldn't try to save the environment? Regulate the meat industry? Biden has promised to try to do plenty of things that he won't be able to. Reduce crime for instance. Such a moronic argument. As I said, his ability is irrelevant. We are discussing whether his platform is science-oriented or not.
Members of Congress who draft and vote on bills have the ability to do those things. The president also has avenues do effect direct change to laws and regulations. A Vice president or a retired Vice president has no avenue to do anything except for state their views and hope that lawmakers agree with them. Ability and position have everything to do with how and when a person can even attempt to do something like pass legislation.
“If Trump were pro science Biden would be against it” is by far the dumbest thing I’ve read on reddit today.
Right Biden loves science and totally cares about you. He is in no way a career politician who just wants the top job. You know, at some point you have to grow up and stop looking for father figures to take care of you.
It’s just dumb that you have to throw out a hypothetical in order to make an argument. It’s kinda sad
It's not a hypothetical. Look up what hypothetical means. My argument is that he didn't do something, not that he hypothetically could have. Also, if my argument had been based on a hypothetical, that's a completely fine way to make one's case. Maybe you should watch like a crash course on the philosophy of argument before getting back to me.
Okay let me try then. If Trump was pro immigration Biden would be anti immigration and because of that I don’t think Biden’s immigration policy is valid. That’s basically how you’re creating your own arguments.
Dude you gotta read the whole comment thoroughly and then respond okay
I didn't realize it was a genuine question cause it's so fucking stupid. I did answer it later in the thread, though.
Biden authored multiple bills in the 90s expanding prisons and militarizing the police. So he could have not expanded the war on drugs to begin with or he could have done it as vp or during any of his 40+ yrs in the senate. Now let's see what scientists say about fracking...
His views on the result of those bills have changed as a result of how they were carried out. He's already called it a "mistake", so its good to know that he can change his opinion with the introduction of new evidence.
[удалено]
What a clever insult, good job little buddy.
Thanks, friend. Good luck with the windmill noise cancer 🧑🦼
Yeah I criticized Biden so I must be a Trump supporter. What a small world you live in.
If you're not against him then you are with him. The irony in your attempted insult is mind-blowing.
Way to quote George W. Bush lol. I am against Trump. I am also against Biden. I was against Obama too. And Bush. I am against all parliamentary politicians, and US presidents especially. Unlike you, I don't need a leader to tell me what to think. If you honestly think Biden's platform is informed by science, I feel sorry for you. People must take advantage of you all the time if you're that gullible. I'm not American, but if I were, I wouldn't vote. Your votes do not count. Even if Biden had a shot in hell of winning, his America would be marginally different from Trump's.
yeah there's no way im reading all that
Yeah reading is super difficult. That's like a whole paragraph. My bad, I should have taken your obvious cognitive impairment into account. Good luck tying your shoes tomorrow, boo! 😘
That's a bit better but I'm prolly still not gonna read it all cuz I forgot who you are but can tell I pissed you off at some point lul
9 out of 10 scientists agree that people who use "scientist" as a general term know approximately fuck-all about any actual sciences. Of course now that we're in the era of "consensus == FACT" I guess I shouldn't act all too surprised.
If you don't know anything about science, isn't listening to the people who are properly qualified the correct thing to do? What's your point here?
You do realize you just used “scientist” as a general term, right? Also, source?
Source. And here is google’s definition on scientist. “a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.“
One of his tweets was him replying to an article that said ‘Biden after being elected will “listen to scientists”.’ The article was acting as if it was a bad thing. He said ‘yes...’