Is he a fan of Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and her father now?
I thought ALL republicans wanted to Genocide trans people within the next 5 years?
He's a fan of whichever republicans can be agreed with for making his crowd of idiots think he's good. Cheney, Romney and the other neo-cucks are being supported because the dumbass left likes them for the next 5 minutes for slagging off Trump.
The next day when they vote against abortion or vote for increasing cops or whatever, they'll go back to being fascists.
He doubles down on his periodic table analogy.
Jesus H Christ, his lack of knowledge on ANYTHING regarding chemistry, yet acting like he understands even a semblance of it insults all my years of study in the subject. Like honestly, this fat fuck acting as if he understood ANYTHING on the topic while probably not even reading about it on Wikipedia made me MATI.
The ONE point he kinda-sorta has is that the display/representation of the elements by their atomic numbers is kinda based on how useful it is. Before the current table, other ways to group the elements such as Dobereiner's triads or Mendeleev's periodic table (which was based on atomic weight rather than atomic number).
That being said, most all of these categorisations and subcategorizations are based on objective commonalities, whether it be physico-chemical properties, electrochemical properties, reactivities, etc. The people who've worked on it aren't going "well, I'll put sodium right next to yttrium because lol." There is a definable order to the whole thing, not some random madness based on the observer; hell that's how scandium, gallium, germanium and technetium got predicted. In fact, that's also how current day scientists are predicting synthetic elements before they're even made. The fact that he doesn't understand that objective aspect and simply thinks that changing one's observation of that aspect changes that aspect is laughable.
But the thing that REALLY pissed me off (again, MATI) was his whole "well, deuterium and tritium are simply isotopes of hydrogen; they have same protons, so D2O or T2O is basically water while not being H2O." In the main debate.
No, goddamnit, those have major OBJECTIVE differences...tell any nuclear technician working in a power plant using H2O in place of D2O is a-ok and they'd whack you to unconsciousness with whatever they had on hand. Same shit with considering U-235 equivalent to U-238 or Co-60 with Co-59. Whether it's called "water" or "aqua" or whatever, the objective definition of "it consists of three atoms, two we recognise as hydrogen, one as oxygen." And if any alien species comes to observe it, if they have a shred of science for observing it, they'll argue the same point.
Honestly, this retard is basically trying to essentially argue a kinda "2+2=5 because I am redefining 2, +, = and 5; just so that I'm right." Because honestly that's the only thing he's aiming for; that no matter what, no matter what kinda redefinition a or obscurations or motte-and-baileys ot whatever he pulls, he is right and should get acknowledgement and profit (without it being called profit) for it.