Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -108
Rapid Response 47
@RapidResponse47
·
331d
WATCH IN FULL: @SecRubio puts on a masterclass as he articulates the Trump Administration's strategy on Ukraine and the meeting with President Zelenskyy.
3/1/2025, 3:37:12 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
331d
He couldn’t do it because he, like the rest of Europe, feels entitled, not grateful, for US help. @ZelenskyyUa doesn’t respect the American people.
Rapid Response 47
@RapidResponse47
·
331d
.@ScottJenningsKY: "All Zelenskyy had to do today was put on a tie, show up, smile, say thank you, sign the papers, and have lunch. That's it — and he couldn't do that."

The Washington Post's Josh Rogin: "I actually agree."
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
331d
Healthy relationships depend on mutual respect. Ukraine and Europe don't respect us; they look down on us. America never had any obligation to protect Ukraine. And now we're asking why we should continue to spend our money, and put our lives on the line, to protect Europe.

The statement is critical of Zelenskyy, suggesting arrogance and a desire for confrontation. It reflects a broader discussion on international relations and the perceived attitudes of Ukraine and Europe towards the US.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language that could be seen as harmful, reducing the potential for constructive dialogue. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It does not respect the dignity of the individuals involved, using terms like 'nutty arrogance.' [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, instead focusing on criticism. [-2]
  4. 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 engages in personal attacks rather than constructive criticism. [-2]