I agree that reasonable people can disagree about Trump, his policies, tariffs, foreign policy and just about everything else. I know I disagree with some of the policies! What I struggle with is when opinions get presented as facts. For example, you say he's going to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Based on what evidence? That's an extraordinary claim. You say inflation is running at 20% or higher. Official inflation data isn't anywhere close to that. Things may feel expensive, but that's different from 20% inflation. You say he is destroying the economy. Yet unemployment remains relatively low, GDP is still positive, markets have experienced both gains and losses and economists themselves are divided on the long-term effects of tariffs and reshoring policies. You say manufacturing will never come back. Maybe not at 1970s levels, but we've already seen major investments in semiconductor plants, battery plants, energy infrastructure and advanced manufacturing in the U.S. under multiple administrations. The real question is how much manufacturing and which industries, not whether it's literally impossible. You say he has no coherent plan. That's possible. But it's also possible that you simply disagree with the plan. Those are not the same thing. The biggest thing I notice is that nearly every negative prediction about Trump is stated as a certainty, while every potential benefit is dismissed before it can even be measured. Maybe he's wrong. Maybe some of these policies fail. But if we're being objective, the evidence doesn't support many of these claims with the level of certainty they're being presented. I think it's healthier to separate what we know from what we fear, and what has actually happened from what we think might happen.
Create an account or sign in to comment