No, tyr. This is delusional. Obama has given Iran billions of dollars. He has enabled their nuclear program. The deal is a sham, and anyone who swallows Ben Rhodes' propaganda about it is a rube.
You're simply wrong. There wasn't a single good alternatives to the deal, which was actually a lot better than we could have realistically hoped for. This has been pointed out to you over and over in other threads, but this thread isn't really about that anyway. 'Don't look at the hacking, it's the Iran nukes!'
Oh I think he might
want to, but will be limited by Trump's own conflicts, and those of his other appointees.
Sure. She just needs a second reset.
You have a quip, not an argument. Putin obviously thought she was a more dangerous foe for him.
Wrong as usual. It's not an ad hom, it's gloating.
It can be gloating, but it's been used as an ad hom here as well. A lot.
And what does that actual criticism consist of? Chicken little proclamations about what would happen if there was no EPA at all. But that's not what's going to happen. The real issue is about balance. The EPA has in fact been very harmful on many occasions. It really does need to be reigned in. But Trump won't abolish it. The knee-jerk reaction here is your own position. I'm just mocking it, because it rightly deserves to be mocked.
Balance? By appointing someone who has said they want to do
exactly what my 'chicken little proclamation' said to head it?
I've seen you make this kind of pedantic argument before, but an EPA that doesn't do anything isn't any better than an abolished EPA. It can in fact be much worse. Selective enforcement against those not in the government's (Trump's) pocket, while looking the other way for the friends can encourage responsible actors out of industry.
You want knee-jerk? That would be your constant deflection and hand-waving from all criticisms of Trump. The crazy thing is I know you have criticisms of him, but it's so much more important to you to be attack 'the left', that you will go out of your way to
not understand what is meant in a criticism and apply this much harsher reading to every point made against the right. You think Trump's appointments will 'balance' the EPA? That's more wrong than saying it will literally be abolished.
Obama has been disastrous on a number of fronts. That you not only didn't see it beforehand but can't even recognize it afterwards indicates that your predictions about what will happen under Trump are not to be taken seriously.
That you keep asserting that Obama has been disastrous has more to do with your agenda and beliefs than with reality. It really burns you up that he's been as popular and successful as he has been, otherwise why apply this weird standard of holding him to doing great on everything? He's done better than I expected, especially with Republicans dispensing with civic duty and good faith efforts.
And what does this have to do with what we can and should do about Putin's attacks? Your cry of 'Obama hasn't fixed it!' is Captain Obvious useless.
You are in no position to lecture me about partisanship. You're just a more polite version of Tony Stark.
Oh, thank you for saying I'm more polite than Tony Stark, but your assessment of such things has long since ceased being something I put weight in. It actually upsets me a great deal that I have to admit that Tony and Travis have been more right about so many on the right than I have been. I still hold out hope for the independents though.
You've given up your science and critical thinking advocacy to make room for political tribalism on climate and pollution issues. You've given up on making good faith arguments on politics because gloating and lecturing about lying in threads you lied to everyone in. So don't be surprised that I no longer believe it won't go down as it has with so many cult of personality demagogues in so many other cases. Unless Putin's favorite loses power, he'll drag people into doing abhorrent things. Well, more abhorrent. Already got you to try deflecting from interference in our elections.
