Trump Retweets ‘#FireFauci’

Anyone who can read a trend line on a graph can see "Trumponomics" was not responsible for "record lows" on unemployment, minority or otherwise. These were pre-existing trends. I'm sorry the facts offend, but they remain facts.

 

That’s funny.

 

Trump isn't firing Fauci.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ernumberfirefauci/ar-BB12zkgv?ocid=spartanntp

 

I'm glad you are tickled by high school math, but the humor you find in the facts won't stop them from being facts. Truth > Blind Trump worship.

Learn to draw a trend line. It will help keep you more intellectually honest.

 

Still doesn't change the title.

 

19th hole is the big problem.

 

Notice the phrasing in some of those paragraphs? Example:

He never contradicted Trump on this. Trump has always stated the usefulness of hydroxychloroquine as possibilities. He has never stated in absolute terms that it is effective as implied by this paragraph. Just that there was some evidence that it might be effective. Something that Fauci also stated. The way that paragraph reads its saying that Fauci had previously stated that its not effective while Trump was saying it was factually effective.

And Fauci is also correct about shutting down earlier. That is a no brainer. Of COURSE if we had shut down sooner we'd probably be better off against the virus. IF that is the only thing that you consider. But also like Fauci said, its complicated. The media is just emphasizing on a particular part that he said while ignoring the rest. All in TDS fashion.

MSN spreads Fake News.

 

Except, you know, back here in the real world, that's not what he said. I know you WANT it to be what he said, because that's more convenient for your politics, but facts have a stubborn way of not conforming to propaganda.

He did not say that "this would not be an issue." Whoever told you that was flat-out lying to you and you need to start doing better homework instead of blindly believing whatever you are told.

What he actually said (you know, back here in reality) is that there was not YET cause to change our daily lives but that this could change. It would be a lie to say he claimed that it WOULD NOT be an issue in the future. I encourage you to listen to the actual interview instead of relying on second-hand propaganda.

 

Every economic trend was on the same basic upswing well before he took office. There is no rational reason to believe he did anything to "cause" something that was following pre-existing trends. And before you are triggered, no, I don't credit Obama either.

 

No just supposition and conjecture.

 

When you have to call historical facts "conjecture" in order to avoid the truth, maybe it is just time to duck out

 

This is reality, and it's not just up to doctors what our policies should be at this time and again I no interest in your insults about Trump they impress me none focus on the reality scroll back and read the excerpts from the WSJ I posted, if you are a subscriber suggest you read it in it's entirety. And you can find 1,000 economists to agree to any given position like your unsourced one, BTW does it include Paul Krugman the nobel laureate who forever has shown he either doesn't know what he's talking about or prefers to use his celebrity to attack politicians he doesn't like reality be damned, your appeal to authority notwithstanding.

 

Claiming otherwise does not change the fact that what was posted is supposition and conjecture.

 

Claiming that historical facts are "supposition and conjecture" does not change the fact that what was posted is not supposition and conjecture. We've been told several times in the past that Trump officials enjoy the support of the administration, only to see them dismissed shortly afterward. It is cute to see you pretend otherwise, but this is a fact.

 

Tell you what, find me more than 5 economists (post 1776) who agree with Trump's zero-sum view on trade and I'll change my signature to a personal apology to you. Screw the thousand or so I can site; can you give me at least 5. Hell, can you give me more than 1?

 

Two words - opportunity zones.

 

It makes the title fake news.

 

One word - dodge.

I'm not asking for hypotheticals. I can look at unemployment over time. I can look at minority over time. Where does Trump break any pre-existing trend? As a matter of fact, employment slows down under Trump. I don't blame him, that is actually to be expected given the high employment levels we reached, but until you can provide proof of your claim, then believing Trump was responsible for some kind of employment miracle would require shoving an ice pick up my nostril and tapping until I can hear colors. I'm not there yet, man.

 

Trump RETWEETS ... what is fake about that given the irrefutable evidence below ...

 

Absolute truth. Obama never implemented those. Trump’s policies resulted in more minorities joining the workforce. You can do the arithmetic on how that works.

 

He retweeted a tweet by DeAnna.

 

I *think* the argument he's going for is that it isn't the *only* content he retweeted . . . that there was other stuff in addition to the hashtag? That's the most sense I can make of it, which would of course be wrong anyway.

 

Math also tells it is a fake argument to claim Trump deserves credit for it. Because I can read a graph. Begging me to ignore facts in order to worship Trump isn't going to work, I'm sorry.

 

Which is EXACTLY what the title states.

 

Do you understand how minorities flooding back into the workforce affects the graph.