Brexit Bin 🇪🇺 🇬🇧 🇩🇪

... or "Ishituary" ...

😅👍

And the rich get richer!

a man wearing a hat and a blue vest is playing a game of chess ALT: a man wearing a hat and a blue vest is playing a game of chess

Trump "playing chess" be like ...

For "Trump's Bucket List" read "Trump's Fuckit List".
👇👇👇

a little girl is laying on the ground covered in leaves with the words nooooo on the bottom ALT: a little girl is laying on the ground covered in leaves with the words nooooo on the bottom

Trump be like ...

SPOILER ALERT: So Trump calls the captains of the merchant ships cowards for not sailing through there, but he won't send his own warships 🤦‍♂️

Yes.

What a silly thing to say.

Wrong. I'm not attacking nuclear energy. I'm pointing out that the risk assesment has changed since Fukushima, and I'm asking what additional safeguards are in place to protect the radioactive material inside nuclear plants in times of war and climate change. You can't answer that so you distract.

Yes. Instead of embracing the modern world, Putin has tried, like Hitler, to return his country to a past that has long since gone. This will result in a much smaller and irrelevant Russia that loses all its territories east of the Urals to its neighbours. Such a waste of time, money and life.

That's why Trump wants to do it.

Auch die CDU/CSU unter Merz und Söder ist nur an Spaltung interessiert. Man kann den Aufstieg der AfD nicht analysieren, ohne die Unterstützung zu berücksichtigen, die ihre populistische Narrative von Merz und Söder erhalten hat.

They'll find Iran a lot harder to flatten than Gaza.

... "Fuckit list" ...

We can only hope so.

Yes. And the only reason Putin hasn't done worse in Ukraine is that he knows Ukraine is too close to Russia. But nuclear plants in central or western Europe would't have that protection.

Yes.

Yes. ... And I'd just note that my questions about the security of nuclear plants in times of war and climate change have been answered with three types of deflection:
1. The "it wouldn't happen" argument made redundant by Fukushima.
2. Saying Fukushima was no big deal.
3. Attacking renewables.

Oh, causing pain and suffering gives the old sadist pleasure too. As does causing chaos.

Yep. On his list, I'm sure.

True.

Oh dear. What happened in Fukushima was a "fantasy argument" too until it happened. 🙄 That's something you continually ignore. But the reality dictated a new risk assessment that ultimately became the driving force behind Merkel's accelerated nuclear pull out. I happen to agree with her. You don't.

That's a strawman argument and it completely ignores the unique position of nuclear energy to do harm. Since Fukushima, new plants need to be able to withstand the unthinkable, not just the likely. You're unable to deal with that, so you get around that new risk factor by pretending it doesn't exist

I seriously think Trump knows he's dying – and he's trying to get through some crazy, tyrannical bucket list before he goes! Bombings!💥 Murders!💥 Persecutions!💥 Unprecedented Corruption💥 ... God knows what or who'll be the next to suffer because of it.
#TrumpsBucketList

True. The push for renewables is now a security issue. In hindsight, it should always have been one. We should all now realise that those who've been fighting renewables and NetZero on behalf of the fossil fuel lobby have actually been undermining our security and safety on behalf of foreign powers.

Ex-DOGE Employee Exploited Americans' Private Data, Whistleblower Claims If true, the actions could constitute one of the "largest known data breaches in American history," Sen. Ron Wyden warned.

"Not only has an ex-DOGE bro been accused of running around with the social security information of every American on a flash drive, he also may have the ability to edit and manipulate data at the Social Security Administration at will."

Oh dear, another one saying: "Fukushima wasn't a game changer". Rather than taking the change in risk assessment seriously, you dismiss it. Your only argument is: "Nothing bad will happen, and even if it does, it won't be so bad". That's not as convincing an argument as you seem to think it is.

Bye

It's this simple:
1. Since Fukushima, new plants need to be able to withstand the unthinkable, not just the likely. But they won't do that because it would make nuclear power even more expensive.
2. If just one major accident happens to a nuclear reactor in Europe, they'll all be shut down.