I like how you slyly inverted the common complaint of Conservatives against the liberal orthodoxy that if you cite basic scientific facts about the differences between men and women, for example, liberals freak out. They can't handle it.
Er, that's not a real complaint. Liberalism is just the political arm of science, while conservatives value other forms of conviction (revelation, intuition, authority, etc.). That's since the beginning of both liberalism and conservatism, but it applies still. Made this post in another thread:
"I think it's clear that just having a commitment to accuracy will make you unacceptable to the right in America. Imagine someone saying:
1. Evolution is real, and the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
2. Human activity is causing climate change.
3. Regressive tax cuts increase deficits and don't noticeably affect economic growth.
4. Immigration has a positive impact on native wages and reduces crime.
You'd assume that they're on the "left" and fume about them even though those are all objectively true statements that even someone who is ideologically on the right would have to admit if they looked into it and were honest about what the evidence said.
Relating it to this thread, telling the truth about the evidence about Biden's actions or Trump's actions would similarly anger right-wingers and have them assume that you're on the left."
He's very clever in a deceptive way. He constantly projects the left's own flaws and failings onto the right, it's annoying AF, but apparently it's a good way to garner power.
LOL! Again, the left has been the side of science since there has been a left. You're confusing rejection of junk science with rejection of real science. I could have made that list much longer. The right essentially rejects all of economics (even you were peddling Austrianism before you became obsessed with HBD stuff--another junk science, BTW), biology, anthropology, geology, and more.