Calling well-earned criticism of economics anti-intellectualism is using the composition/division fallacy.
Most people's lives have been affected for decades by Chicago School of Economics voodoo nonsense, that's where much modern criticism is aimed.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt
• https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/11/how-economics-became-a-religion
It's this: https://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-deletes-post-depicting-8647-after-backlash-online-2073031
James Comey posted a picture of "8647" (get rid of Trump) spelled in shells.
The "light truck" exemption is a huge problem, and needs to be repealed.
Big cars also reduce everyone else's visibility.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jg047oJf1B4&t=45s
Yes, and if that's the only issue that matters to you, and you ignore the impact on all those other people, I guess that's fair to say they are the same. But does all that extra suffering serve a purpose? Are you volunteering yourself to bear any of it, or only others?
Straw men? You understand that these are actually things that are really happening, right?
The GOP didn't update their platform since, like, 2015, unless you count Project 2025, which Trump claimed to know nothing about. In the 2020 election, it still referenced running against Obama.
I understand how you've arrived at that conclusion, but you should investigate Popper's Paradox.
It would be so much more interesting to see the % of dollars claimed.
Does negging his customers count as an idea?
I think the rationale is that, when it's a single individual, they can't pass the buck or blame the group. It's a final appeal at a human level.
The trick is not electing a troll.