wants to ban antidepressants, enable kids to use tanning beds , wants flavoured vapes back on the market,  is an anti-vaxxer, does nothing about Round-up, wants to stop a non-existent conspiracy theory  (chemtrails). 

he was safer when he was on smack

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:21pm:

wants to ban antidepressants, enable kids to use tanning beds , wants flavoured vapes back on the market,  is an anti-vaxxer, does nothing about Round-up, wants to stop a non-existent conspiracy theory  (chemtrails).  he was safer when he was on smack

I'm sure I also read somewhere that he also wants flouride banned from water supplies as well. There goes Americans' teeth!

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:21pm:

does nothing about Round-up,

What about Round-up? Give us the science not the scary stories. Oh that's right you don't do Science. 8-)

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:29pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:21pm: does nothing about Round-up, What about Round-up? Give us the science not the scary stories. Oh that's right you don't do Science. 8-)

Said the RFK Jr supporter who supports conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated and discredited "research". The jury is out on whether Roundup is carcinogenic. What everyone who uses any kind of chemical should do is use appropriate PPE and handle chemicals with great care. It's a bit of a no-brainer.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:

Said the RFK Jr supporter who supports conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated and discredited "research".

Oh dear. Jumping the shark again.  ;D ;D

So the US EPA does unsubstantiated discredited research? Please show these papers that say that. ;)


Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:

The jury is out on whether Roundup is carcinogenic.

If the jury is out. there is no scare. ;)


Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:

What everyone who uses any kind of chemical should do is use appropriate PPE and handle chemicals with great care. It's a bit of a no-brainer.

And i have never said anything different.

Baby Don Don loves his nutters.

Is it just that Don doesn't want to be the craziest member of his team ?

Most of the criminals in Trump's administration are sadistic sociopaths.

I'm willing to give RFK Jr the benefit of the doubt, though - I think his craziness is caused by the brain worms.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:12pm:

Most of the criminals in Trump's administration are sadistic sociopaths. I'm willing to give RFK Jr the benefit of the doubt, though - I think his craziness is caused by the brain worms.

https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/05/19/99/45/360_F_519994541_TABPKuZ1QFkxo7uo33kYa0CBLnQ5MUq6.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:12pm:

Most of the criminals in Trump's administration are sadistic sociopaths. I'm willing to give RFK Jr the benefit of the doubt, though - I think his craziness is caused by the brain worms.

I don't think he is a criminal

I think he is unqualified and unsuitable for that position.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:21pm:

wants flavoured vapes back on the market,

MAGA shitheads have been running endless ads thanking ol orange fatty that "people not have a choice to quit smoking by...vaping...? WTF? This is American taboo industry propaganda to get kids smoking since sales have dwindled among America's youth killing themselves with cigarettes. Maggie Mae Fish explains it so much better:

https://youtu.be/bbV6I8VRMG8

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 1:01pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:55pm: Said the RFK Jr supporter who supports conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated and discredited "research". Oh dear. Jumping the shark again.  ;D ;D So the US EPA does unsubstantiated discredited research? Please show these papers that say that. ;) Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:55pm: The jury is out on whether Roundup is carcinogenic. If the jury is out. there is no scare. ;) Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:55pm: What everyone who uses any kind of chemical should do is use appropriate PPE and handle chemicals with great care. It's a bit of a no-brainer. And i have never said anything different.

Regarding discredited research, I wasn't referring only to the EPA. RFK Jr relies on discredited research when justifying his brain dead decisions on things like vaccines, medications, COVID, etc. He is a clueless conspiracy theorist who has no business being in his current role.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 10:06am:

lee wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 1:01pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:55pm: Said the RFK Jr supporter who supports conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated and discredited "research". Oh dear. Jumping the shark again.  ;D ;D So the US EPA does unsubstantiated discredited research? Please show these papers that say that. ;) Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:55pm: The jury is out on whether Roundup is carcinogenic. If the jury is out. there is no scare. ;) Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:55pm: What everyone who uses any kind of chemical should do is use appropriate PPE and handle chemicals with great care. It's a bit of a no-brainer. And i have never said anything different. Regarding discredited research, I wasn't referring only to the EPA. RFK Jr relies on discredited research when justifying his brain dead decisions on things like vaccines, medications, COVID, etc. He is a clueless conspiracy theorist who has no business being in his current role.

On that, we can all agree.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 10:06am:

I wasn't referring only to the EPA

Then you mean the EPA among others does unsubstantiated discredited research.

He knows a lot about teenagers' sperm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWF4XLGBEAU

Widely read eh. ;)

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:45pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 10:06am: I wasn't referring only to the EPA Then you mean the EPA among others does unsubstantiated discredited research.

No. I mean the new EPA Administrator hand picked and appointed by Trump just ignores credible, accepted research and just goes with whatever batsh!t crazy ideas Trump has about the environment.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 7:19am:

lee wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 2:45pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 10:06am: I wasn't referring only to the EPA Then you mean the EPA among others does unsubstantiated discredited research. No. I mean the new EPA Administrator hand picked and appointed by Trump just ignores credible, accepted research and just goes with whatever batsh!t crazy ideas Trump has about the environment.

Indeed.

Science is completely ignored by the Trump crime organisation.

They base their 'policies' on TikTok videos and Facebook posts.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 7:19am:

I mean the new EPA Administrator hand picked and appointed by Trump just ignores credible, accepted research and just goes with whatever batsh!t crazy ideas Trump has about the environment.

Ah, then you can cite sources. With peer-reviewed backup. ::)

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 1:25pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 7:19am: I mean the new EPA Administrator hand picked and appointed by Trump just ignores credible, accepted research and just goes with whatever batsh!t crazy ideas Trump has about the environment. Ah, then you can cite sources. With peer-reviewed backup. ::)

Why? I'm not the one making any bizarre claims like pain killers cause autism or that dead babies are used in vaccines or that COVID wasn't real.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 1:27pm:

I'm not the one making any bizarre claims like pain killers cause autism or that dead babies are used in vaccines or that COVID wasn't real.

You are making bizarre claims about the EPA. ;)

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 1:37pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 1:27pm: I'm not the one making any bizarre claims like pain killers cause autism or that dead babies are used in vaccines or that COVID wasn't real. You are making bizarre claims about the EPA. ;)

He merely stated the facts: the new EPA Administrator hand picked and appointed by Trump just ignores credible, accepted research and just goes with whatever batsh!t crazy ideas Trump has about the environment.

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 1:37pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 1:27pm: I'm not the one making any bizarre claims like pain killers cause autism or that dead babies are used in vaccines or that COVID wasn't real. You are making bizarre claims about the EPA. ;)

Hey, if you don't believe me, Google is your friend. I'm sure even you can find some info on this.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 2:15pm:

Hey, if you don't believe me, Google is your friend.

you trust google? OK. What specific question should be asked to get an unbiased result? ;)

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 2:18pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 2:15pm: Hey, if you don't believe me, Google is your friend. you trust google? OK. What specific question should be asked to get an unbiased result? ;)

I guess you could start with: "Was the new EPA Administrator hand picked and appointed by Trump?"

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 3:37pm:

lee wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 2:18pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 2:15pm: Hey, if you don't believe me, Google is your friend. you trust google? OK. What specific question should be asked to get an unbiased result? ;) I guess you could start with: "Was the new EPA Administrator hand picked and appointed by Trump?"

Or there’s also “Is Donald Trump a habitual liar?”…



Answer:

Whether Donald Trump is considered a "habitual liar" is a subject of extensive documentation and debate, with many fact-checkers, critics, and some former allies labeling his frequent, false, or misleading statements as habitual or compulsive. Kentucky State AFL-CIO +2Documented Falsehoods: According to the Washington Post Fact Checker database, Donald Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims during his four years in office.Expert and Political Criticism: Critics, political opponents, and some psychologists have described his behavior as "pathological" or "compulsive" lying.Nature of Claims: Reports have described his approach as telling lies "without attending to it," often repeating false claims even after they have been corrected.Defense Perspective: Supporters often frame these claims differently, sometimes characterizing them as hyperbole, strategic exaggeration, or "alternative facts" rather than simple lies. YouTube·CNN +6While supporters may view his rhetoric as exaggeration, opponents and fact-checking organizations have documented a unprecedented volume of false statements during his time in public life.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 3:37pm:

I guess you could start with: "Was the new EPA Administrator hand picked and appointed by Trump?"

Which doesn't say anything about the science. but it is the ::) kind of thing I expect of you.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 4:07pm:

Or there’s also “Is Donald Trump a habitual liar?”…

And that also says nothing about science. You seem to be running scared of putting a scientific question. ::)

Try: does the new EPA Administrator, hand picked and appointed by Trump, ignore credible, accepted research and just goes with whatever batsh!t crazy ideas Trump has about the environment?

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 4:54pm:

Try: does the new EPA Administrator, hand picked and appointed by Trump, ignore credible, accepted research and just goes with whatever batsh!t crazy ideas Trump has about the environment?

Why? Did it return something? ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 5:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 4:54pm: Try: does the new EPA Administrator, hand picked and appointed by Trump, ignore credible, accepted research and just goes with whatever batsh!t crazy ideas Trump has about the environment? Why? Did it return something? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Based on developments in early 2026, the EPA under President Trump's appointed administrator, Lee Zeldin, has implemented policies that critics say ignore established scientific consensus in favor of deregulation.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 5:18pm:

Based on developments in early 2026, the EPA under President Trump's appointed administrator, Lee Zeldin, has implemented policies that critics say ignore established scientific consensus in favor of deregulation.

Oh ignored the consensus. ;D ;D ;D ;D

So nothing to do with science then. Consensus is political not scientific. ::)

But perhaps you can tell us what the specific criticisms were? ;)

Science has always been adversarial.

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 5:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 5:18pm: Based on developments in early 2026, the EPA under President Trump's appointed administrator, Lee Zeldin, has implemented policies that critics say ignore established scientific consensus in favor of deregulation. Oh ignored the consensus. ;D ;D ;D ;D So nothing to do with science then. Consensus is political not scientific. ::) But perhaps you can tell us what the specific criticisms were? ;) Science has always been adversarial.

Scientific consensus is the collective position, judgment, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts in a specific field. It is established through rigorous peer review, replication of results, and the synthesis of evidence over time, representing the most reliable, evidence-based understanding of a topic rather than a simple majority vote.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 5:44pm:

Scientific consensus is the collective position, judgment, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts in a specific field. It is established through rigorous peer review, replication of results, and the synthesis of evidence over time, representing the most reliable, evidence-based understanding of a topic rather than a simple majority vote.

So consensus rules? What about all those advances in science where scientists refuted the consensus view? ;)

BTW - Science magazine  as a repository of consensus opinion wrote a tome for judges entitled "The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence" This from the home of trhe "experts". Unfortunately for them the "Climate Science"Chapter had to be withdrawn. It claimed things not in evidence, but was part of the AAAS culture. So much for "Climate Science", expert witnesses and all.

But apparently that has certain "climate scientists" in a tizz. ;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 4:12pm: Most of the criminals in Trump's administration are sadistic sociopaths. I'm willing to give RFK Jr the benefit of the doubt, though - I think his craziness is caused by the brain worms. I don't think he is a criminal I think he is unqualified and unsuitable for that position.

He is possibly the least qualified person to ever hold any political position.

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 5:41pm:

Science has always been adversarial.

Is it now, lee? Why is that, lee? Can you explain your ignorant statement, lee? Why not, lee? Do you need to refer to one of your pseudoscience garbage right-wing sites and copy and paste aftermath, lee? Why can't you think for yourself, lee? Do you need help with your antipsychotic medication, lee?

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 5:41pm:

....................  Science has always been adversarial.

I think males are generally adverserial

Science does not possess a trait, it is not human

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 3:14am:

lee wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 5:41pm: ....................  Science has always been adversarial. I think males are generally adverserial Science does not possess a trait, it is not human

Both males and females can be adversarial
Males are more openly adversarial.
Females tend to be more subtle but it is just as common.

Usually females use the tactic of reputational attack to get one up on other females

Another word might be gossip.
The tactic is designed to undermine other women in the peck order.
I would be fairly certain that teenage girls  " mean girls" behaviour carries over into adulthood

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 6:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 5:44pm: Scientific consensus is the collective position, judgment, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts in a specific field. It is established through rigorous peer review, replication of results, and the synthesis of evidence over time, representing the most reliable, evidence-based understanding of a topic rather than a simple majority vote. So consensus rules? What about all those advances in science where scientists refuted the consensus view? ;) BTW - Science magazine  as a repository of consensus opinion wrote a tome for judges entitled "The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence" This from the home of trhe "experts". Unfortunately for them the "Climate Science"Chapter had to be withdrawn. It claimed things not in evidence, but was part of the AAAS culture. So much for "Climate Science", expert witnesses and all. But apparently that has certain "climate scientists" in a tizz. ;)

You ask if consensus rules. Generally, yes. If the vast majority of scientists say cancer is bad and a minority say cancer is good, then the scientific community is going to go with the consensus of the majority. It’s a no brainer - for most people!

Dnarever wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 9:46pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 6:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 4:12pm: Most of the criminals in Trump's administration are sadistic sociopaths. I'm willing to give RFK Jr the benefit of the doubt, though - I think his craziness is caused by the brain worms. I don't think he is a criminal I think he is unqualified and unsuitable for that position. He is possibly the least qualified person to ever hold any political position.

To be blunt, he’s a moron.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 7:16am:

Dnarever wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 9:46pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 6:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 4:12pm: Most of the criminals in Trump's administration are sadistic sociopaths. I'm willing to give RFK Jr the benefit of the doubt, though - I think his craziness is caused by the brain worms. I don't think he is a criminal I think he is unqualified and unsuitable for that position. He is possibly the least qualified person to ever hold any political position. To be blunt, he’s a moron.

The brain worms from eating roadkill certainly haven't helped him.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 9:42am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15th, 2026 at 7:16am: Dnarever wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 9:46pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 6:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 4:12pm: Most of the criminals in Trump's administration are sadistic sociopaths. I'm willing to give RFK Jr the benefit of the doubt, though - I think his craziness is caused by the brain worms. I don't think he is a criminal I think he is unqualified and unsuitable for that position. He is possibly the least qualified person to ever hold any political position. To be blunt, he’s a moron. The brain worms from eating roadkill certainly haven't helped him.

I am NOT convinced that doctors removed all of the worms inside his brain. My eight year-old can put together a far more coherent sentence than RFK Jr ever has. Listening to him is just painful and incredibly difficult to follow what he is saying.

Marla wrote on May 14^th, 2026 at 10:06pm:

Is it now, lee? Why is that, lee? Can you explain your ignorant statement, lee?

Just for you so you can gain a basic understanding of how science works.

A scientist has a theory, he expounds on that theory, he tries to prove that theory with observations. Other scientists will disagree, that is a given. Now they should be able to put up counterarguments, and no "you are a denier" is not a counterargument.  They therefore have opposite opinions, may be not totally but partially. They are therefore in adversarial positions.

Did I make that clear for you?

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 7:15am:

If the vast majority of scientists say cancer is bad and a minority say cancer is good, then the scientific community is going to go with the consensus of the majority.

Now having made that statement, please show where one scientist has said cancer was good.

But perhaps you can include a single subject like the consensus of climate change which is true. Demonstrably true...ie by observation. ::)

25 medical consensus that were wrong.

https://imahealth.org/25-times-medical-consensus-had-to-be-rethought/

lee wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Marla wrote on May 14th, 2026 at 10:06pm: Is it now, lee? Why is that, lee? Can you explain your ignorant statement, lee? Just for you so you can gain a basic understanding of how science works. A scientist has a theory, he expounds on that theory, he tries to prove that theory with observations.

Ah, no.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 2:12pm:

Ah, no.

Ah yes. He tries. Even though science can never be "proven". Or perhaps you would have liked me to use the word "show"? ;D ;D ;D ;D

But it was good that you conceded the rest. ;)

lee wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 2:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 15th, 2026 at 2:12pm: Ah, no. Ah yes. He tries. Even though science can never be "proven". Or perhaps you would have liked me to use the word "show"? ;D ;D ;D ;D But it was good that you conceded the rest. ;)

"A scientist has a theory, he expounds on that theory, he tries to prove support that theory with observations."

You're welcome.

lee wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 2:08pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15th, 2026 at 7:15am: If the vast majority of scientists say cancer is bad and a minority say cancer is good, then the scientific community is going to go with the consensus of the majority. Now having made that statement, please show where one scientist has said cancer was good. But perhaps you can include a single subject like the consensus of climate change which is true. Demonstrably true...ie by observation. ::) 25 medical consensus that were wrong. https://imahealth.org/25-times-medical-consensus-had-to-be-rethought/

Wow, you are stupid! I was making up a simple example. Obviously I don’t think cancer is good, nor do any scientists that I know of. I was just using cancer as an example to illustrate my point! My goodness, you MAGA morons are dumb!!!

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

Obviously I don’t think cancer is good, nor do any scientists that I know of. I was just using cancer as an example to illustrate my point!

So you don't have a salient point. Thanks for that. ;)

Marla wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 1:02am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:21pm: wants flavoured vapes back on the market,  MAGA shitheads have been running endless ads thanking ol orange fatty that "people not have a choice to quit smoking by...vaping...? WTF? This is American taboo industry propaganda to get kids smoking since sales have dwindled among America's youth killing themselves with cigarettes. Maggie Mae Fish explains it so much better: https://youtu.be/bbV6I8VRMG8

U.S. — Teenagers across the nation are discovering a hip new alternative to vaping, called "smoking cigarettes."

Thousands of youngsters are beginning to ditch their vape pens for packs of Marlboro, attracted by the more sophisticated look and flavor of real cigarettes.

"These are such a cool invention," said local teenager Hayden Bennett, lighting up a loosie. "It looks way more hardcore than a dumb pen. Strawberry-flavored junk is so lame."

Sales of cigarettes have spiked, partly spurred by increased concern of the health risks of vaping. "I heard vaping could cause throat and lung cancer. I'm going to try to wean myself off by using cigarettes. It seems like a much more natural alternative."

At publishing time, teenagers had reportedly discovered a cool new alternative to delta-8 gummies called "alcohol."

lee wrote on May 15^th, 2026 at 4:30pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15th, 2026 at 4:05pm: Obviously I don’t think cancer is good, nor do any scientists that I know of. I was just using cancer as an example to illustrate my point! So you don't have a salient point. Thanks for that. ;)

Not surprised you'd miss the point completely.  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 5:37pm:

Not surprised you'd miss the point completely.

On the other hand I am not surprised you thought you had a point. (It took you that long to think up an answer?)

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 5:37pm:

lee wrote on May 15th, 2026 at 4:30pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15th, 2026 at 4:05pm: Obviously I don’t think cancer is good, nor do any scientists that I know of. I was just using cancer as an example to illustrate my point! So you don't have a salient point. Thanks for that. ;) Not surprised you'd miss the point completely.  ::)

Your point was that you are an idiot: you invented 'scientists who say 'cancer is good" in order to demonstrate that you understand nothing. You parade your incomprehension and idiotic invention as if it was something to be understood, ie your 'point'.


Tendentious idiocy. No wonder you are totally TDS.