Here's a start.
I take it trying out Trump as Prez wasn't a problem then, since nobody knew exactly what would happen if he took office?
I'd argue that's more the danger of putting giant magnifying glasses above cities rather than using solar power. Fortunately solar power doesn't require that we affix giant magnifying glasses above cities so no need to worry there.
What's your point? Are you trying to argue that Trump shouldn't have been allowed to run in the election at all just because of what "might" happen if he gets elected? Because that's how you end up with dictatorships and totalitarianism. Dictators scared that somebody might beat them in an election so they just don't have elections at all. Is that what you're advocating? Stop having elections full stop just because there's a possibility somebody bad will get elected?
Big boy version. Quickest KFC cooker on the planet, or maybe KFB is better suited.
Plus our latest clean energy experiment. I wonder where we got this 'non nuclear', 'non solar' idea from?
-"Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? You're basically arguing that "we shouldn't do something just because some people might do something bad with it". It's also massively ironic that you're advocating for nuclear power at the same time as arguing that."
You mean people shouldn't have voted for Trump because he and his admin might do something bad with their power? So nobody should vote for anybody because they might do something bad with the power? Seemed like plenty of people were for and against Trump or Hillary. So who's justified and who's not?