BaldProphet

Wild conspiracy theories about the shit that goes on at the upper levels of the Mormon church has an unfortunate way of being proven true years and decades after the fact.

Such as? There are many lies that are commonly spread about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. Which ones are you referring to that have been "proven true"?

Has the Mormon church said anything yet about whether or not Tim Ballard was excommunicated, despite his use of elder Ballard’s name and his own sex abuse of women? Or are they still keeping that one quiet?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not issue public announcements when a member's membership is withdrawn. The decision to do such is made at the stake level. People with some level of public prominence, such as Tim Ballard, are known to announce the withdrawal of their membership themselves, usually in order to garner additional support from their followers. The policies of the Church on this topic are not secret and can be found here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number71

Id point out that the crazy right-wingers likely have more guns and ammo but less actual training than ordinary conservatives.

Hildebrandt should be excommunicated for apostasy, but she likely has too much insider knowledge to safely kick out.

Lol, that's some wild conspiracy theory stuff right there 🤣

Franke was always borderline abusive as a mom (and that’s pretty par for the course in Mormon families, TBH)

I don't know about families in minority sects, but this kind of thing is extremely rare among families in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It certainly happens as much as in any other demographic, but generally rarely. The Church does not tolerate the abuse of children and the actions of Franke will certainly result in excommunication (if it hasn't already).

The Associated Press has an obsession with publishing hit pieces against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is notable that the Church isn't implicated in the charges against Goodrich and offered a substantial sum of money to the victim even though it was under no legal or moral obligation to do so. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Perhaps there is a tonal message in your words that you didn't intend (your native language seems to be German?). This paragraph comes across as dismissing my comment while making a sweeping, inaccurate, and baseless judgment that I "distrust any media that contradicts my beliefs:"

But by you talking about “the media” I guess you are trying to find reasons to further your already present distrust in any media that contradicts your beliefs?

Hard to see how that couldn't be meant as, at best, a passive-aggressive dig, implying some level of instability or paranoia.

A tiny percentage of Americans hold the majority of that wealth. The average American is not wealthy.

"The media" is a common term in American English that refers to mainstream news outlets. I said I felt gaslit because the early headlines and articles on this topic suggested that names were made visible, not that they were merely added to accounts.

Regardless, there is no call for personal attacks. I'm sure you can find the maturity to respond to comments you disagree with in ways that don't involve attacking the users who post them.

Lol not sure why the somewhat gratuitous character attack there, but whatever.

I never said the cost of nuclear was a function of regulation. I do believe that NIMBYism has a lot to do with it.

The thesis of your remarks seems to indicate that you think that nuclear power generation is inherently more expensive, and I'd be interested in hearing your non-circular reasoning for that implicit assertion. So far, all I've heard is "Nuclear is more expensive because it is."

A study by MIT in 2020 found that most of the excessive costs related to building nuclear plants are due to lack of decent standardization. Part of the problem is that because of emotional opposition to nuclear, the industry has had little opportunity to actually deploy any of the modular reactor innovations that have been developed in the last 50 years.

Here's a link to the MIT article: https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

Again, I'm interested in hearing your reasoning for why nuclear is more expensive, other than "it just is" and "renewables are better".

How much of those costs are due to obstructionism by anti-nuclear folks like yourself?

Also, breeder reactors are not "potential future tech". There are numerous contemporary breeder reactors designs, and the very first nuclear reactor to generate grid power in the United States was a breeder reactor.

There have been more deaths and major environmental disasters with fossil fuels than with all nuclear accidents combined (including the less reported ones that happened in the 50s and 60s). Nuclear plants are generally safe and reliable. They do not produce excessive waste like wind (used turbine blades) and solar (toxic waste from old panels that cannot be economically recycled).

Nuclear is the superior non-carbon energy source right now. Climate change is an emergency, so we shouldn't be waiting on other technologies to mature before we start phasing out emitting power plants in favor of emission-free nuclear plants.