Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
Shrugging at âfake inflation,â Team Trumpâs economic message takes a weird turn When Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, for example, was asked Thursday about public attitudes, he replied, in reference to American consumers, âWell, look in their heart of hearts, they feel good,â Bessent said. âIâm not sure what theyâre telling the survey people.â
Shrugging at âfake inflation,â Team Trumpâs economic message takes a weird turn When Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, for example, was asked Thursday about public attitudes, he replied, in reference to American consumers, âWell, look in their heart of hearts, they feel good,â Bessent said. âIâm not sure what theyâre telling the survey people.â
This is a big struggle. a) I don't think it's good to leave blatant lies around unchallenged, even if it's just a "this is BS". b) I get decorum and high road and all, but if you have someone blatantly lying ("gas is cheaper now than a year ago"), then it's not an honest debate, and there is no obligation for decorum. If only one side is 'playing by the rules', then the people playing the 'game' are not on even footing and the results shouldn't be respected. Back to the topic - When they first trotted out "alternate facts", they should have been roundly quashed and driven back to a common set of reference. We can debate if it is 'warm' or not, but the sky is objectively blue, there isn't room for discussion there unless you are a privileged asshole looking to hurt others, and that shouldn't be tolerated.
Agreed. In the end though, it is emotional appeal vs. reason. It will only end when all the people who got sucked into the emotional cuddles of tribalism start feeling cold and unwanted and vote against it (like in Hungary recently). Until then I'm going to keep reading the academics who actually know a thing or two.
Because from the very beginning they drank the cool aid... politics no longer had to correspond to reality but relied entirely on spin.
So truth was no longer a measure of the virtue of an argument, policy or even a debating position. Truth was instead replaced by allegiance to a platform.
That's why they don't think they are lying but showing loyalty, which is far more important to their mafia boss cause.
It's also why debating with them is a pointless exercise. (note to self: stop debating with them).
This is a big struggle. a) I don't think it's good to leave blatant lies around unchallenged, even if it's just a "this is BS". b) I get decorum and high road and all, but if you have someone blatantly lying ("gas is cheaper now than a year ago"), then it's not an honest debate, and there is no obligation for decorum. If only one side is 'playing by the rules', then the people playing the 'game' are not on even footing and the results shouldn't be respected. Back to the topic - When they first trotted out "alternate facts", they should have been roundly quashed and driven back to a common set of reference. We can debate if it is 'warm' or not, but the sky is objectively blue, there isn't room for discussion there unless you are a privileged asshole looking to hurt others, and that shouldn't be tolerated.
And Hegseth's 'Bible verse' turning out to be from Quentin Tarrantino in Pulp Fiction.
I'm curious why Republicans are ok with allowing Rome to Burn â how can they believe they can escape climate change, or war, or economic Twister?
Is your kid getting into Harvard more important than their ability to breathe the air without a mask?
Because from the very beginning they drank the cool aid... politics no longer had to correspond to reality but relied entirely on spin.
So truth was no longer a measure of the virtue of an argument, policy or even a debating position. Truth was instead replaced by allegiance to a platform.
That's why they don't think they are lying but showing loyalty, which is far more important to their mafia boss cause.
It's also why debating with them is a pointless exercise. (note to self: stop debating with them).
And Hegseth's 'Bible verse' turning out to be from Quentin Tarrantino in Pulp Fiction.
I'm curious why Republicans are ok with allowing Rome to Burn â how can they believe they can escape climate change, or war, or economic Twister?
Is your kid getting into Harvard more important than their ability to breathe the air without a mask?
See comment below on privilege. Also, many of these people believe they are on a mission from god (apologies to Jake and Elwood). They don't understand the bible (or I don't, but it's really them), and it's teachings on love and understanding and community support vs. vengeance and retribution.
How do these people even look themselves in the mirror...Shamelessly despicable!
They think it's funny. People with privilege can afford a little hardship. People who are assholes laugh when other people suffer. Privileged assholes, cause harm and laugh when it hurts vulnerable people.
How do these people even look themselves in the mirror...Shamelessly despicable!
And Hegseth's 'Bible verse' turning out to be from Quentin Tarrantino in Pulp Fiction.
I'm curious why Republicans are ok with allowing Rome to Burn â how can they believe they can escape climate change, or war, or economic Twister?
Is your kid getting into Harvard more important than their ability to breathe the air without a mask?
