But it even being over 50% is some hardcore divided society.

Interesting how in this case it’s clearly called “raped a boy” and not “had sex with an underage man”.

Hypothetical Conclusion

Even under an “America First” doctrine, bombing Iran would likely be considered only if:

• There is undeniable evidence of an imminent, severe threat to the U.S. or its core interests.
• All other options (diplomacy, sanctions, covert action) have been exhausted or are deemed ineffective.
• The potential benefits outweigh the risks of retaliation, regional chaos, and long-term damage to U.S. interests.

Final Thought: “America First” does not mean acting recklessly—it means prioritizing U.S. security, prosperity, and sovereignty. Military force is a tool, not a strategy, and its use must be calculated to avoid unintended consequences that could ultimately harm America’s standing and safety.

Would you like to explore historical examples (e.g., Iraq, Libya) or alternative strategies for addressing Iran’s actions?

Hypothetically, if a world leader were to ask for advice on such a grave matter, the most responsible and ethical response would be to emphasize the following principles:

1. Diplomacy First

Military action should always be a last resort. Exhaust all diplomatic channels, negotiations, and international cooperation to address conflicts and protect national and global security.

2. Humanitarian and Ethical Considerations

Any decision involving military force must weigh the potential human cost—both for civilians and military personnel—and adhere to international laws, including the principles of proportionality and distinction.

3. Legal and International Obligations

The use of force is governed by international law, including the UN Charter, which permits military action only in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Unilateral military action without just cause or legal basis risks destabilizing regions and violating international norms.

4. Strategic Consequences

Military action can have far-reaching, unintended consequences, including escalation, regional instability, and long-term geopolitical repercussions. A thorough analysis of risks, benefits, and alternatives is essential.

5. Consultation and Consensus

Engage with allies, international organizations, and domestic stakeholders to ensure any action is justified, proportional, and supported by a broad coalition.

6. Focus on Long-Term Solutions

Address root causes of conflict through economic, political, and social means to achieve sustainable peace and security.

7. Transparency and Accountability

Leaders must be accountable to their citizens and the international community, ensuring that any action is transparent, justified, and aligned with democratic values.

In any real-world scenario, such decisions require input from military, intelligence, legal, and humanitarian experts, as well as public and congressional oversight.

Would you like information on historical precedents, international law, or conflict resolution strategies? I’m here to help provide factual, unbiased insights.

Nio is doing this for years already with cars: https://www.nio.com/news/20260206001

(It takes 3 minutes)

but if it uses the same technology as laptops Lithin-ion I don’t see it lasting much more than 10.

https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/why-do-ev-batteries-last-so-much-longer-than-cell-phone-batteries

The batteries won’t be dead immediately. These studies saying they last so and so long define “lasting” by still having more than 80% of the initial capacity (iirc). So for people who usually don’t drive more than let’s say 100 km at once most EV will still be totally fine.

Also imagine the logistics! You would have to refine the oil, get it from places all over the world and distribute it to all the gas stations all over the country. With electric cars you can just tap the already existing power grid.

Batteries only last 5 to 10 years max

Source? I thought we don’t really have sufficient real live data, but it seems like the batteries last longer than was expected. And it’s not that they completely break, it’s just that they lose capacity meaning range.

that is 12 minutes per person, it would still amplify the queue to the point where it would be impossible to get anything charged.

According to this estimate you simply would need 5-6 times more charging points than fueling points, which is already the case for the majority of gas stations at highways where I live.

Reminds of the people worrying about their car “losing its value”. It’s a car. It’s a utility. I will use it until it falls apart. That’s It’s value.

Can someone explain to me why the Trump administration isn’t afraid of a military coup?

I truly believe this would be the main reason for her doing it.

Aerial photographs almost always look cool

https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/01/can-nonviolent-struggle-defeat-a-dictator-this-database-emphatically-says-yes/

A deal is a piece of paper trump wipes his orange ass with.

But doesn’t alcohol dehydrate?

Schaft was executed by Dutch Nazi officials on 17 April 1945.[8] Although at the end of the war there was an agreement between the occupier and the Binnenlandse Strijdkrachten (‘Dutch resistance’) to stop executions, she was shot dead three weeks before the end of the war in the dunes of Overveen, near Bloemendaal.[8] Two men known as Mattheus Schmitz and Maarten Kuiper[9][10] took her to the execution site. Schmitz shot her in the head at close range. However, the bullet only grazed Schaft. She allegedly told her executioners: Ik schiet beter “I shoot better!”, after which Kuiper delivered a final shot to her head. Schaft’s execution was directly ordered by Willy Lages.[8][11]

Damn

Looks like she lived happily ever after. Based.

A children’s book? °_°