I'm objecting to the parent post starting with 2021 as the year to note that the whitehouse account was posting stupid things. That implies that it was not being stupid prior to 2021, when in contrast the most historically asinine tweets in existence (at least from people in places of high authority) occurred in the 2015-2020 range.
Tweets in general are not good. Most are pointless, many are stupid, some are evil, and sadly only a few are worth existing. So I'm not suggesting that current White House tweets are good. They are just not remarkable in comparison to the tweets from the previous period.
You're welcome to scroll thru https://twitter.com/whitehouse45 if you can stand it. Granted most of it is about every holiday, the decorations for that holiday, the holiday decoration preparations, and the occasional other redecorating courtesy of the First Decorator.
But you definitely can find BS things similar to the one from the social security topic.
"President @realDonaldTrump
has done more to lower medicine prices than any President in history!" (unsurprisingly it's hyperbolic and almost completely lacking any truth or evidence; the evidence points to an opposite result)
I'm not going to dig thru the pile to prove you wrong. But you're wrong.
Edit: Ok, I just have to add this gem.
"This Administration is "tackling longstanding problems that no other Administration had the guts to do," @SeemaCMS
says."
That period was just chock full of useless tweets or outright false tweets.
> "President @realDonaldTrump has done more to lower medicine prices than any President in history!" (unsurprisingly it's hyperbolic and almost completely lacking any truth or evidence; the evidence points to an opposite result)
That is increasing government payments to insulin sellers on for old people using insulin covered by Medicare.
When most people think of “lowering the price of insulin”, they would not think “increasing subsidies to a select group of the country, that happens to vote heavily, and heavily for the administration’s party”.
Also, the insulin price cap was for older, cheaper forms of insulin. The modern ones are still more expensive. Hence, anytime a politician touts doing something about insulin prices without specifying “all insulin”, I assume they are BSing.
Older people are on average more vulnerable, both to disease and increases in the cost of medication. And so what if only certain insulins are made cheaper? They're still cheaper.
It is always possible to spin anything negatively, but it might be worth considering why you're putting in this much effort.
Because pitting certain tribes of constituents against each other is a big problem in US politics, works against efforts to redistribute wealth for all. Now that the old voters have their healthcare, they have less incentive to vote for plans for others to get it.
Most importantly, it avoids politicians having to address the root problem, which is the lack of taxpayer funded R&D into medicine that would be in the public domain, hence not subject to the high prices of patented medicine. And of course, this helps the businesses that patent medicines.
It is also ridiculous to me how much more my country prioritizes the elderly over children, who are literally the future.
> Because pitting certain tribes of constituents against each other is a big problem in US politics
Doing things for some groups is not the same as pitting groups against each other.
> works against efforts to redistribute wealth for all
You can only steal and reallocate money, not wealth. This will destroy wealth for all.
> the lack of taxpayer funded R&D into medicine that would be in the public domain, hence not subject to the high prices of patented medicine.
Plenty of R&D is at least partially taxpayer funded, but you're underestimating the total amount of R&D (including the cost of completely failed ideas) that goes into drug discovery. Deciding taxpayers should fund the sum total of pharma R&D, and presumably also the production costs, as those would've been funded by the patent-protected profits, seems strange on the face of it.
> how much more my country prioritizes the elderly over children
The elderly aren't always prioritised. But with health, they, along with newborns and pregnant mums, are some of the naturally most at-risk people in your population.
The same way he controls his press officers, who are constantly retracting his statements and retroactively editing out his "gaffes"? I'm highly doubtful.
Tweets in general are not good. Most are pointless, many are stupid, some are evil, and sadly only a few are worth existing. So I'm not suggesting that current White House tweets are good. They are just not remarkable in comparison to the tweets from the previous period.