Is it better that it is so obvious? Insidious as it might be, using yes-men and underhanded tactics is just as awful when your goal is to propogate false science. Or "alternative facts" in the present case. With leftist ways, we are left with trying to dissuade those trained to already think critically.
As opposed to those who have to be told what to think. With every tweet. Science is the one bastion of supposéd truth. The inept, as I call them, trust leadership when there is no evidence that the goal can be reached. The ego maniacal chief is a "moron". Be sure to buy the book.
Is it any wonder that the former Secretary of State ran for president and the current one knows his "Master-in-Chief" is a moron? An intellectual cripple. People are not real estate. Not buildings. Not bricks. Maybe numbers. The business of politics is to talk. Negotiate. Compromise. Bullying is tyrannical.
Is it possible to compromise science? I think so. When you trust the wrong scientists. Or those with a conflict of interest. Or especially those with a similar interest. Obfuscation is dangerous. With the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic, it was seen as "that" community's problem. I see parallels with the opioid "crisis".
Not until it affects pretty, young, rich, white-girls does the government attempt to solve any "other" community's issues. The issue of a nuclear attack does not belong to some other community. It will affect everyone at the same time. Instantly. Is this another new reality? Or just the same.
Enough commentary, Chief? Your turn.
Who do you think they're looking at?
(Subtle isn't it?)
