Michael Schellenberger

Rank 36 of 47
|
Score -62
2/8/2025, 12:31:48 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
277d
And these are the same members who advocated, justified, or defended the weaponization of the deep state agencies FBI, DHS, CIA, and USAID against their political rivals. Shocking, sick and deeply illegal stuff. And it went on for nearly a decade.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
279d
USAID's defenders say it's about charity and development in poor nations. It's not. It's a $40 billion driver of regime change abroad. And now the evidence suggests that it, along with the CIA, were behind the 2019 impeachment of Trump — an illegal regime change effort at home.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
277d
Naturally, the members of Congress who stormed the Department of Education are the same people who are accusing Trump, in exercising his Constitutionally-specified duties, of violating the constitution.

It's all projection all the time with these people.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
277d
The members of Congress are saying they’re entitled to enter the building because they are members of Congress. Nope. That’s not what our Constitution says.

Left-wing authoritarianism overlaps exactly with narcissism. That’s what’s on display above. Most obnoxious people in DC
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
277d
The American people elected Trump and he has authority over the Dept of Ed, not Congress. Its oversight duties don’t mean its members can storm executive branch buildings. Radicalized members, not Trump, are the ones threatening the separation of powers.

The statement criticizes certain members of Congress for allegedly defending poor educational outcomes and policies. It uses a confrontational tone, questioning the motives and actions of these members. The statement is part of a broader conversation involving political accusations and criticisms.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses a confrontational tone, potentially causing harm by attributing negative motives to members of Congress without clear evidence. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of others, as it labels members of Congress as 'radicalized' and implies they support failure. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue, instead using accusatory language and personal attacks. [-1]