The prosecutor was fired because

We do not know why. We do know, Biden insisted on his being fired as a condition for Ukraine getting American aid.

because he wasn't prosecuting

Ah, but he was! He was prosecuting the natural gas company, which was paying Hunter tens of thousands of dollars per month — despite the guy having no knowledge of Ukrainian (nor Russian) language, and neither legal nor gas-extraction background.

They also laid him off as soon as his daddy lost his position of influence.

Now, maybe the fired Shokin's pursuit of Burisma was in itself corruption-motivated, but there is a very profound appearance, Hunter was used as a conduit for funneling bribes to Joe Biden.

So profound, an investigation into the likely bribery was perfectly warranted...

using an NYPost link

When did you start hating NYPost? Was it before or after their publishing the very accurate and later-confirmed expose about shocking materials from the Hunter Biden's laptop?

The failson would've ruined his senile father's election chances, so the FBI-ridden social-media companies, facing the threats by the top Democrats, suppressed the perfectly accurate reporting by the newspaper you continue to hate...

Or do you have something else to impeach my source?

It's not

Whom are you trying to gaslight, boy? Are we supposed to forget the whole "Defund the police!" slogan advanced by the "anti-racist protesters"? Police and prison system too.

systemic injustice in society

There is systemic racism in college-admissions, yes, but that was just dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court, so it should diminish despite some rearguard opposition by the retreating hard-core racists of the Academia.

But the topic was crime, and there is no "systemic racism" in the Justice System — not since the early 1990-ies.

The found nothing that could be prosecuted.

Thank you for confirming, that — after lying for years, that "non-circumstantial" evidence exists — they found nothing.

They did find the former alleged president was Putin's bitch.

Bitch, please... The unimpeachable facts I listed earlier prove the exact opposite...

Fuck you, Commie..

You missed "Tried to extort Ukraine to get political favors"

No such "extortion" took place. Criminal prosecution of an actual bribe-taker — who actually extorted Ukraine — is not extortion, it is doing the job. President, you surely remember, is the nation's top law-enforcer.

"Admires Putin"

He does consider Putin smarter than Biden, and I certainly agree with that. That's no admiration, though...

But good to see, you had nothing — zilch — on the items I did list.

What is the point of complaining specifically about people of color breaking the law?

Because complaining about lawlessness is racist, duh... And this stupidity is not the OP's fault.

Trump follower here...

I too applaud Ukraine's resourcefulness, and wish to remind you, that while Trump was in office, Putin kept quiet. Because Trump:

Blocked Putin's alternative pipeline into Europe

Which meant, Ukraine was the primary route for Putin's carbohydrates to European markets.

Insisted, European nations build up their militaries

Which is, what they are hurrying to do now...

Insisted, European nations diversify their gas- and oil-supplies

Which is, what they started doing only after Putin's invasion

Provided Ukraine with real weapons

... such as the Javelins — after Obama/Biden limited themselves to supplying tents and sleeping bags. Indeed, today the collective Biden is still hang-wringing over providing F-16s to Ukraine, but under Trump American pilots have trained in the country, together with Ukrainian colleagues.

I can go on — but want to limit this post to stuff related to Ukraine directly.

This assumes there is zero environmental cost to petroleum extraction

No such assumptions made — nor implied. Indeed, my post makes no mention of "petroleum extraction" whatever.

In a comparison of lifetime emissions through the entire lifecycle EV's so far are still coming out ahead even with the "dirty" mining.

Your link compares the greenhouse gases emitted — not the actual poisons dumped into the environment. It also quietly skips the recycling part — counting only the mining of materials, manufacturing, and usage of the vehicle, whereas it is the disposition of a used-up lithium battery, that's possibly the dirtiest part...

"Greenhouse gases" are innocuous — even their link to "global warming" is tenuous — whereas the byproducts of building the modern EV's batteries are unquestionably poisonous.

Maybe, the next generation (torium or "sea salt" based ones?) will be better, and then we, the consumers, will switch to such cars, the way our ancestors switched from livestock-drawn carriages to automobile a 100+ years ago. Willingly, eagerly, and without governmental coercion.

The problem with lithium is the processing! It generates garbage byproducts as a result of refining and that also needs to be processed. The reason why China supplies a huge amount of lithium to the world is basically they don't give a rats ass about the processing byproducts. They just dump it in the desert, or just leave it the waste onsite.

And yet, we continue referring to this as "clean energy", including in TFA:

domestic source of lithium for the clean energy transition

and our government coerces us into using it...

Cerberus (named after the monster from Dante's Inferno)

The monster — a three-headed dog — was part of Ancient Greek mythology for thousands of years before Dante. Dante had the classical education, that certain journalists lack...

Sheesh, maybe, the weather phenomenon is named after a certain invention from MIT, huh?..

Just Russia in general — and Roscosmos in particular — trying to stay relevant... And not just to the war crime-prosecutors.

Not really sure why your saying that.

Because you referred to yourself — and your own word-usage — earlier.

and there's a lot of variability

And this is why, when there is doubt, we use dictionaries — preferably, not of the "living and breathing" kind...

that is far from implying your usage of the words sex and gender is the correct one.

I meant no such implication in the most recent post. In the first one, however, I did link to the dictionary-entry for "gender", which I'm going to quote now:

S: (n) sex, gender, sexuality (the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles) "she didn't want to know the sex of the foetus"

without actually changing biological sex type.

Thank you, we, actually, agree, that Mammals — the species of Homo Sapiens included — cannot change sex.

My understanding is we can't turn a biologically human female into a biologically human male.

Indeed! And yet, it is this unattainable "turning", that the "gender-affirmation" (also known as "sex-changing") surgeries and procedures promise: "Oh, you're really a girl in a boy's body? No problem, we'll change your body!"

So, back to the original point — if the irreversible medical procedures offered under such false promises are acceptable to both medical regulators and public at large, even when the patient is an underage youth — why not permit people to insert electrodes into consenting adults' brain too?

I tend to avoid using them interchangeably.

This is not about you — words (including pronouns, by the way) have known meaning shared by all users of a language.

The point stands: if you seek to "reaffirm" it by changing the sexual organs of a human being, it is the sex you're trying to change, even if you'd rather use a different synonym to describe it.

And changing sex is impossible for Mammals, despite the immense diversity of our circa 6400 species...

Elon has had more gender affirming surgery

He was born male and never attempted to change that — which change is impossible for a Mammal, unlike the empty promises of today's quacks.

The direct brain-to-computer interface is possible — in theory. Whether or not it satisfies the FDA's requirements for substantial efficacy, it is theoretically achievable. Unlike a sex-change.

Now, this Libertarian would rather abolish FDA completely, but we don't need to argue that now. I don't need to prove myself right here, I just need to prove you wrong — and your view's inconsistency with itself does that...