Found my partner on Hinge as well, so it kind of per definition isn't useless. That being said, I don't think one should invest too much time and energy into it since online dating can be incredibly emotionally and mentally draining.

The "both sides" argument is one of the fascists' favorite ways to inspire voter apathy, maybe take a second to think about harm reduction instead of focusing only on your own moral superiority.

Also, I'm not American, I have never voted in a US election.

To remind people that their actions have consequences and that they need to take an active role in the democratic process if they want to preserve it.

Well, no, tariffs are import taxes, whoever imports the product to the country pays for it, the exporter does not.

Biden was not nearly critical enough towards Israel, he did not stop supplying them with weapons, but it seemed like he was at least not happy with what Netanyahu is doing. Trump, on the other hand, is very clear in his explicit approval and practically daring Israel to do more. There is a difference.

Both are bad, both are wrong, but even you have to be able to see that one option is worse than the other.

Him pouring gasoline on the fire sure as shit didn't help.

"I'm for euthanasia but I think we need to introduce it in a way that doesn't reduce access to healthcare"

What part was negated?

I don't think Trump is as much of a lackey that's following the plan as he is a useful idiot that's easy to manipulate. I believe that Trump believes that the US is the biggest and the best - it suits the same image he has of himself as the biggest and best leader - but he's so dumb and narcissistic that he won't realize that he's being led on a leash.

I don't think Trump consciously wants to destroy America, I think he wants to make it what he considers to be great (a militarily powerful dictatorship built on worshiping him), but he's absolutely fine with making it weaker in the interim if it either:
A. Makes him gain something
B. Feeds his ego

I also read it as the total CO2 emission reduction over its lifetime is 45000 tons which equates to the emissions of 10000 cars for one year, but the article leaves it a bit ambiguous.

But it still plays into the narrative that everyone should be afraid of supporting Ukraine because you never know what Putin might do, with the added bonus that it make it seem like Trump isn't his lapdog.

Probably not, I would imagine it's more of a threat to get Putin's attention than an actual plan.

When has Putin shown disdain at being called crazy? If I remember correctly, a lot of world leaders have instead claimed that seeming crazy has been one of Putin's tactics to avoid being challenged as people are afraid of what a crazy person might do, especially one that rules a country with one of the world's largest armies and the largest nuclear arsenal.

This reads a bit like "that hasn't happened to me so that doesn't happen".

Two vowels after the K, Käärijä.

The UN only has power insofar as other countries agree that it does. If they start taking harsher stances, countries will start pulling out of the UN which defeats its whole purpose.

Not to mention that Trump, Xi, and Putin aren't the only three authoritarians in the world. You have Orban, Erdogan, Berdimuhamedow, Tokayev, Un, etc.

That's without mentioning most of the countries outside the west or in close contact with the west, or the growing political movement towards authoritarianism in other western countries. For example Meloni in Italy, Le Pen in France, Fico in Slovakia, Simion in Romania, and so on.

It's the 250th birthday of the US Army, this was supposedly in planning already under Biden's administration. Trump is definitely taking the opportunity to make it about himself though.

Would be much easier to counter if there was a functional system of checks and balances or a well-educated population that'd hold their leaders accountable, but here we are.

This is a very brief, very incomplete list but from what has been reported so far they are

• Deporting people with legal visas because they express opinions that the presidential administration disapproves of

• Sending people who were in the US legally to a foreign prison without due process. That last part is especially important, without due process anyone can get punished without having any recourse for proving their innocence.

• Severely damaging international relations and damaging the world's economies without any reasonable process or determination, especially with long-standing allies and trade partners.

• Dismantling large portions of the government, a lot of it created for enabling life-saving research, providing assistance to those who are most in need, and protecting citizens from toxic, dangerous, and otherwise harmful products, including in food and medicine. A lot of it through sudden, unannounced, unjustified, and illegal firings.

• Aggressively attacking anyone who disagrees with the administration, even if their disagreement stems from the law or even the constitution itself, including attacking legal firms that represent those parties.

This is without mentioning what they are doing to infringe on voting rights, redistribute more wealth to the very richest, reduce protections for minorities and strengthen systematic discrimination, and otherwise dismantling democracy at large.

If you look at the timeline in the article, post-2030 the act states that it would be indexed.