Did Trump seriously not consider the optics of this?

did Trump seriously not consider the optics of this?

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>(((consider the optics)))

I thought we loved Dilbertman

>optics

Yes. These are weasel words and you fuckers should be happy he's restricting their use.
If you going to say "there's evidence and science" then you need to actually show it.

is John Q Public going to pick up on that?

or is he just going to see that Trump has outlawed science and evidence

>caring what other people think
Evidence based and science based is a way to say you're not at fault for lying if caught, it's the study's fault. Now the CDC has to print the truth or be liable for it.

>muh optics

>caring what other people think
in a democratic system?

Verry misleading.
Eugenics is science and evidence based.

"Based on science" is a nonsense statement that means nothing. You have to reference the actual "science" it is based on. Scientists don't talk like that. "Lol I'm just doing some science family xD"

If science includes the sociology and anthropology, and evidence includes personal anecdotes, then it's a good move.
>twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en

This is for budget proposals only

still a news item

Do you want Trump to look like he hates science and evidence? How does this help him? Where is the 4D chess

Here is the ironic thing, John Q public WILL pick up on it, and realize this is a good thing. The ironoy is that so called EDUCATED college grads will be the ones saying this is outlawing science and evidence

you are placing an enormous amount of confidence in John Q Public

I hope they pick up on it.

This kind of shit is actually helped if "evidence-based" is a prohibited label, cause it surely doesn't meet the standard of being evidence-based.

Trump's a postmodernist.

Both terms are Newspeak.

Saying killing all white people to reduce C02 emissions is "science-based".
Saying blacks were oppressed once is "evidence-based".

Do either of those statements make any sort of sense? No. Of course they don't. They can be made to mean anything, which is precisely why it's Newspeak. It's the same reason Trump banned "diversity" from being used. What does "diversity" even mean? Well, our "evidence-based" conclusion from the way the media and the Jews have been carrying on for the past few decades, "diversity" just means less white people.

>Saying killing all white people to reduce C02 emissions is "science-based".
You're making up stuff. Why? Reality is scary enough as it is, why add insane science fiction paranoia on top?

>Saying blacks were oppressed once is "evidence-based".
You know they were literally slaves?

>implying I give a shit what libtards think
Libtards thought the internet was going to get shut down the instant NN was repealed. Trump is also correct to not give a single fuck.

>White people should have less children to fight climate change, says science
>Niggers having unlimited broods is okay though
Example of "science-based" opinions.

>You know they were literally slaves?
You know white Europeans literally were too? To blacks, no less

This is FREEDOM and WINNING for the FREE MARKET of ideas!!!!

because its bullshit when people use evidence and science to contradict my opinions and religious beliefs

>science and evidence is okay, as long as it conforms to my worldview supplied to me by billionaires and international media conglomerates who definitely don't have a self-centered tribal interest to protect, nope nope nope
>all other science and evidence should be banned

>Example of "science-based" opinions.
You're posting The Independent. The Independent is a newspaper. It is not a scholarly journal.

>You know white Europeans literally were too? To blacks, no less
Every commie will tell you people - including white people - are oppressed. Doesn't mean that there wasn't a very salient time in history where white people, categorically speaking, oppressed black people, categorically speaking, i.e., slavery.

Don't make all of this so complicated.

The Independent is journalism, not science. Science-based means science-based. Black people in the Americas were literally enslaved for a few centuries.

There's plenty of stuff to be mad about, why do you have to be insane instead?

>science and evidence is okay, as long as it conforms to my worldview supplied to me by billionaires and international media conglomerates
something something Murdoch Trump something