They will get impeached.

That's not a guarantee. The only historical precedent we have (Clinton) only had 5 Democrats vote in favor of impeachment even when he very clearly perjured himself. Now to be fair, that's a far lesser offense than what we're seeing now. But in today's hyperpartisan times, I legit don't know what Democrats would do if put in a similar situation. They sure as hell defended Hillary to death with the email server, even though that was roughly on par with Signalgate.

Human mucking about with nature has a bad track record, and many creatures depend on mosquitoes for food. It would be a terrible idea to mess with ecosystems on that level.

Disagree: https://cr.usembassy.gov/secti...

"Life finds a way" was a warning against meddling with poorly understood biological processes... exactly what you would be doing by completely eradicating mosquitos.

We've been eradicating the screwworm for decades, with generally only positive results. Whole ecosystems aren't collapsing

Humans are also generalist eaters. That doesn't mean there won't be severe problems if you suddenly eliminated, say, all rice crops.

Would there though? Diets would adjust. Different crops would replace the missing rice. The total food supply would stay the same, just with different plants supplanting the missing ones on the freed up farm land

>>It will be filled with another part of the food chain.

when? like overnight? will bat species that live off of mosquitos immediately shift to some other food source or will their populations collapse before they have the time to make that kind of change in the behaviour of the whole-ass species

I'd imagine reasonably quick. Insects have lifespans in the ranges of weeks-months. And the biggest limiters on species growth are competition for resources and space. If one insect species is removed, another one will very likely fill the gap as the competition is reduced and resources freed.

that's not "wiping off" one leg of their nuclear triad by any stretch. plus they still have 2 more.

This attack wasn't about stymying their nucelar capability. It was to reduce their ability to yeet cruise missiles endlessly from 2000+ miles deep in their territory. And in that, it was immensely successful.

I mean we can say that but Jimmy Carter was talking about climate change back in the 1970's and the recommendations were the same as today: start planning on cutting back on burning fossil fuels, start to embrace renewable energy sources. In a perfect metaphor Carter put solar panels on the White House as a symbolic gesture only to have Reagan come in and tear them down. We haven't gotten anything done precisely because

What the hell do you mean "we haven't gotten anything done"? We literally did those things. The last US coal plant came online in 2013. US emissions are below 1987 levels. Renewable portion of power generation has gone from ~8% in 2001 to 23+% today. EV use continues to ramp.

You see...it's when people like you say stupid things like that that causes people to roll their eyes and tell you to fuck off. Because it's endless goalpost moving, "not good enough"-ism, perfect is the enemy of the good, and just flat out denial of real progress.

The NFL is the perfect example of why people pirate. For those that don't know, NFL games are generally broadcast in their home market IF the game is sold out. If not, the game was not broadcast locally. There are a few games (4-5 of the 16) per week that are broadcast nationally. Now if you don't live local to your team, then you could only watch your team maybe a few times a year relying on national broadcast. Then came NFL Sunday Ticket (if you had satellite TV). For one price, you could get all games** (IF it was not broadcast locally, etc.) However you could not get games for one team if you wanted to pay less. NFL Sunday Ticket started in the era of analog satellite so it was somewhat understandable back then that they could not limit games to the ones a specific customer wanted. These days, everything is digital over the Interwebs; yet NFL Sunday Ticket has yet to offer a package for one team. Compounding that is the price increases every year. And that's for the average residential customer. Commercial customers like bars had a different price structure often charging per screen. While some bars that had dozens of TVs would like all of the games, most smaller bars would really like the local team only..

It's even worse than that. Before, if you had cable TV or something like Sunday Ticket, you could at least guarantee you'd be able to see all the games. Now they've spread the season across multiple streaming networks, which means you need to have a handful of subscriptions to achieve the same feat. There's no single service you can go to and enjoy the full season.

We use per capita because it levels out ALL the sources for a nation and because some sources are easier to supplant than others.

Ha, no you don't. You use it because it's the easiest way to dunk on the US. And you guys love to dunk on the US.

Existing climate models and "deadlines" don't even take into account a "do nothing for the first 20 years" approach

They absolutely do. In IPCC AR, it's called Scenario A (Business-as-Usual)

Why would government exist at all except to "deliver better outcomes for society"

To provide core functions that society cannot provide? Such as shared military defense? Moderating intra state commerce? Foreign policy? Things of that sort? "Deliver better outcomes for society" isn't exactly their primary purpose. That's historically a state govt thing. Fed govt is supposed to do the bare minimum of tasks the states can't do themselves and then GTF out of the way. Picking winners and losers in the market isn't a role I'd subscribe to federal govt

That if you're over 40 when you went to college the government paid 80% of your tuition

Over 40 here. Wow I got screwed. Like maybe ~10% was grants, ~30% was low rate govt loans, and 60% was high rate private loans. I remember post-college being so eager to gain home equity so I could use a home equity loan to make the high rate private loans go away. How'd you people get so much free money?

Trump won because the majority of the electorate (out of those who made the effort to cast a vote) didn't feel any of Trump's previous transgressions disqualified him from holding office again. That's the real issue here. You keep talking about a woulda-coulda-shoulda scenario based on razor thin margins, and I'm here saying that in a sane society, a race against Trump shouldn't even be close in the first place, and when it is, that's the real problem.

I would say the real problem is that people were more willing to accept his previous transgressions than accept the policy Democrats were pushing . It really bugs me that Democrats gloss over this fact. Biden's policies were unpopular, and Harris accepted the exact same mantra and was just as unpopular. Much of Trump's current agenda is still relatively popular: https://cis.org/Arthur/Deporta...
Most of it fails in the extreme and haphazard/illegal/unconstitutional manner in which he's implementing it. That's what people don't like. They like what he's doing, just not how he's doing it. For instance, if he was in solidarity with our allies and only trade warring China, or if he was deporting people constitutionally, he'd be the most popular president ever.

To me, it reads like a large portion of the country were glad that somebody, anybody, finally was willing to do something about the blaise attitude previous presidents have been taking on issues like the border and illegal entries. Similar with issues like being tough on China, govt debt spending, DEI overreach, etc. These are all issues a good chunk of the country cares about that Democrats continue to be on the wrong side of every administration, and in this two party govt, people are always forced to choose the lesser evil. In this case, people looked at Trump's mostly benign first term and believed the tradeoff was worth the risk. And now they're finding out that's not the case. And my proof of this is that the swing voters have all changed their mind about him: https://www.yahoo.com/news/tru...

No they are not. EV owners are taxed at a higher rate. There are plenty of rich people who only drive ICE vehicles.

It's like you're not even reading the words I write. A far greater number of higher income people drive EV vehicles than poor people: https://www.parking-mobility.o.... That's a fact. " About 60% of EV owners have an annual income of more than $100,000, while only 20% have an annual income of less than $50,000."

By taxing EVs, you're hitting far more high income individuals than lower income.

That's not what DEI is. That's what right-wing media has told you DEI is. DEI tends to involve things like removing names from applications and resumes so that people don't choose, consciously or unconsciously, based on the perceived racial/ethnic background of the applicant. It's things like making sure outreach and recruiting efforts aren't skipping over underrepresented areas

That's not what DEI is. That's what left-wing media has told you DEI is.

In reality, it's both . The "good DEI concepts" went way too far and started adopting things like defacto quotas (see modern day college admissions, or "Biden: the next Supreme Court member will be a black woman, nobody else need bother to apply"). And the current Republican govt is overreacting and labelling all DEI bad, instead of just the overreach. If the Dems ran DEI on equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, they wouldn't get nearly as much pushback. The resume concept is actually solid practice, but that's like a very small percentage of the whole of what DEI is doing.