21st February 2017
That’s because obvious stupidity is very frustrating. An example:
“If he hadn’t gotten into office, 70,000 miners would have been put out of work,” Patricia Nana, a 42-year-old naturalized citizen from Cameroon. “I saw the ceremony where he signed that bill, giving them their jobs back, and he had miners with their hard hats and everything — you could see how happy they were.”
The regulation actually would have cost relatively few mining jobs and would have created nearly as many new jobs on the regulatory side, according to a government report — an example of the frequent distance between Trump’s rhetoric, which many of his supporters wholeheartedly believe, and verifiable facts.
Note the assumption that ‘new jobs on the regulatory side’ would have equaled ‘mining jobs’ so what’s Trump complaining about?
Well, for one thing, ‘mining jobs’ produce coal, a useful product; ‘new jobs on the regulatory side’ produce regulations and interference with people trying to produce a useful product — not the same thing.
Plus, who thinks that ‘new jobs on the regulatory side’ would be the sort that former coal miners would qualify for? Show of hands? Yeah, I thought so.
Coal miners out of work, new jobs for Children of the Crust — it’s all good, according to the Washington Post.
That’s why people voted for Trump, and why they cheer each time he kicks a ‘journalist’ in the ‘nads.