| > Idon’t think your suggesting I’m “arguing in bad faith” is complying with that guideline. > We don’t know why he nominated Myers When you're making statements like nothing much has changed in the GOP's opinion of the NWS and climate change in 20 years and it's a giant mystery why Myers (who so often talked about this position) would get appointed really strains my ability to see it as arguing in good faith. You're arguing for me to ignore reality over and over and over. > It could simply because some advisor talked the guy up to him. You mean like the people behind Project 2025 which you act like would have zero influence in Trump's administration? > Which is evidence against your narrative that the GOP is 100% behind this agenda. Maybe not 100%, but once again one side is openly advocating for it and working towards it and the other side isn't. You're telling people to ignore reality. It's not a sure thing everything in Project 2025 will happen if Trump wins, but if you don't like any of it you probably shouldn't vote for the people who endorse it. It's not a guaranteed thing the NWS will be privatized if the GOP win in November, sure. But voting GOP is to vote towards that end. With the NWS, with Social Security, abortion rights, contraceptive rights, gay marriage, and so much more. |