You're viewing part of a thread.
The sitting president did it…the commander in chief. I get you like nuclear but this is embarrassing
The sitting president told... wait for it... A bunch of idiots. I get that you don't like nuclear, but this is embarrassing.
I don’t dislike nuclear, I dislike bad arguments and bad decision making. The president wields enormous power over the stability and infrastructure required for nuclear to be safe and sustainable. You cannot have watched the debate last night, or the events of Jan 6, and feel confidence that anyone involved can be trusted with a goldfish, much less consistently providing a stable nation capable of securing nuclear plants.
If your argument is “don’t worry a sitting president may have staged an insurrection, but it was incompetent so it’s totally ok to leave him in charge of nuclear plants” then yeah, I think that’s a bad argument. And embarrassing
Bad arguments like portraying a bunch of idiots as an actual military force and a war? And you're still (kinda) at it. Now a strawman. Yup, you're everything you project about bad arguments. Ciao.
Bad arguments like “the president of the United States tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.” Man the gaslighting from you is wild.
Speaking of strawmans (a weird one at that). And gaslighting. And wild. Projection in case you don't get it.
Why am I bothering. Ciao.
You keep using all the classic rhetorical terms reserved for people who have argued themselves into a corner. You’re not very good at this. cIaO CiAo