this narrative is false and needs to be discarded of.

the president of the united states is not an economic advisory position, and the president has no proper role to play in the economy. that role is held by congress. the presidency is a military and foreign policy role, which is primarily about commanding the military.

the confusion that the british press may have about this issue would be related to comparing the prime minister to the president, but that is a false comparison. the prime minister's role in britain is quite broad due to the fact that the king has taken on a dignitary role. in practice, the prime minister is both the leader of the house of representatives, there called the house of commons, and the functional commander in chief, because the king holds no real power. in the united states, the president is not the leader of the house of representatives and does not hold the responsibilities associated with it, but is strictly a military and diplomatic role.

economic legislation is not written by the president but by the congress and the congress will rightly be judged on it's economic performance.

the president will be correctly judged on his foreign policy performance, as that is his role and his job in the american system.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgepyv20vrpo

i had to rewrite that a little, because the statistics are written in such a way to emphasize smoking and de-emphasize obesity as causes of cancer. the reason for this is that smoking is seen as unacceptable nowadays, whereas there is still a lot of retarded political correctness around obesity.

so, the statistics will say "smoking" as what it is, but will split obesity into five or six categories. the result is something like this:

smoking - 20%

obesity - 13%

diet - 6%

low exercise - 4%

but what that really says is

obesity - 23%

smoking - 20% 

i don't want to split hairs. obesity and smoking are both major public health problems, and both major causes of cancer, heart disease and other health problems. i'm happy to adjust the language.

but obesity is in truth the larger problem, because it is getting worse, and smoking rates are coming down. there are still a lot of boomers that have to die in the next few decades, but those statistics are going to be dramatically different in a couple of years. obesity is going to shoot up to the top of that list very soon and be the leading cause of cancer by a good margin by 2040.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-45619041

the leading causes of cancer in the united states are smoking, gasoline and obesity, and the dominant cause of obesity in the united states is overwhelming amounts of corn consumption.

you should try to almost completely cut all corn - gmo or not - out of your diet and replace it with things like soy and whole wheat. corn has almost no nutritional value.

the idea that glyphosphate causes cancer is a fringe conspiracy theory with no scientific evidence supporting it and mountains of research contradicting it. the whole point of using the genetically modified seed - which is what this is really about. opposition to gmos has hit a brick wall because the science is so overwhelmingly clear that they aren't dangerous, so the conspiracy theorists have shifted focus to the pesticides, hoping to grasp on to straws that in fact are not actually there - is that it reduces the reliance on pesticides like ddt that are known to cause severe problems. roundup was intentionally engineered as a solution to carcinogenic pesticides, and it is one. 

the amount of ignorance on the left around this issue was extremely embarrassing when the issue first developed. i remember helplessly watching good leftists fall for terribly researched right-wing conspiracy theories that had the intellectual weight of an alex jones expose. it was exasperating.

it's helpful to see these people land out in right field, with the conservative fringe, which is where they've always belonged.

americans are horribly unhealthy and the amount of corn they eat is a major cause, not the gmo seeds used to plant it or the pesticides used to grow it. americans need to drastically reduce the amount of corn in their diets and reducing subsidies for the corn industry would be a positive step in helping reduce the amount of corn in their diets.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/27/trump-supreme-court-maha-glyphosate.html

i think that the united states should have high tariffs on eu-imported vehicles, especially on german vehicles.

i think canada should have tariffs on german vehicles, too.