Right now nearly all aid to Ukraine comes from Europe and Russia is not able to win that war. At least not easily. That is with Russia in a war economy, whereas Europe half asses deliveries for the most part and obviously there are over a million professional European soldiers with some really good kit around as well.
The problem is that birth right citizenship is in the constitution. So if Trump can get rid of that, he can get ignore the Bill of Rights as well.
EDIT: Also basically every country has birthright citizenship usually be having a citizen as a parent. What is different in the Americas is jus soli, so being born in the country making you a citizen.
Why do you believe Rutte pushed through the 5% military spending target? It is needed to replace the US in Europe and be a working deterrent to both Russia and the US.
It also is a bad move to leave NATO, as this makes the EU the logical center to coordinate the defense of democracies.
The German government sold 60% of the company in 1960. So another 12 years.
Just look up the Musk followers on Xitter.
Why do you need me to come up with reasons justify your hate booner for China?
See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn’t fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.
I initially just wanted to point out that China does in fact consume a lot more coal, then you claimed. If you want to have the moral discussion, we can have that. The fundamental problem with your logic, is that you presume future emissions do not matter. The fact of the matter is that we will emit much more in the coming decades. Higher current per capita emissions make it much more likely that future emissions will be higher as well. At the 2023 rate of emissions, China emits as much as the EU cumulative did until 2023 in 25 years. Last year China increased its emissions by 0.8%. Current UN forecast put the population of China 633million and the EU at 347million. I hate to say it, but it is very realistic to presume that China ends up just as guilty by your metric as say the EU.
First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2.
It is also a metric China will not want to use. Per capita annual emissions are already higher in China then in many Western countries. More so UN population forecast shows Chinas population falling much more quickly then that of the West.
Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don’t matter anymore?
Do you think I am here to hate on China or something? Your inital claim was:
How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less.
And when you looked at the numbers and you were clearly wrong, you moved the goal poast again:
So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it’s already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.
Or 50% more to be at the level of the EU, using the Our World in Data numbers from 1900(thanks btw). Given current production, China would overtake the EU around 2040 in that metric.
Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.
EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.
Pollution per GDP is a bad measure. Mali has a high CO2 intensity, but the GDP per capita is low, so pollution is low. The best measures are emissions per capita in consumption and production terms. China is not a saint in either of those metrics, being rather close to the EU in both of them today.
Not so sure about that. China overtook the EU in 1987 in coal consumption, but today it is at 25,000TWh or so. In 1965 the current EU countries were at 4,500TWh. It certainly is not much less, if China has not overtaken the EU by cumulative coal consumption.
It is a modified version of Mastodon, with a Soapbox front end. It does not have ActivityPub enabled and lacks a bunch of features.
Thankfully only DDos. Truth Social is Mastodon so a security flaw could have been a real problem.
Also closing it means Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have a massive shipping problem, which would really threaten those countries in such a massive way, that it could be seen as an attack on them. Not to mention that oil is shipped to countries all around the world. Basically everybody who is not an oil exporter is going to hate them for doing it.
Also Iran needs to ship oil via the straight as well. Starting some conflict around it, would really hurt their income.
For your average Trump support they are the same thing.
Stop it! The Chinese parade did not have ads!!!
Never said that Trump supporters would switch sites. I said that Vance is less popular, which means less likely to get as many people to activly vote for him.
A power vacuum in Iran would have a good chance of ending the civil war in Sudan. So I believe the odds are pretty good,especially if it is a short one.
Every Iraeli and Palestinian has experienced violence from the other site. Clearly Israel is occupying the West Bank and not the other was around, but it would be foolish of me to presume that the Israeli left loves Palestinians. Thankfully they do not need to, but just need to make a deal. Without shooting at each other relations will improve. Obviously the right is independent of Natanyahu, but current polls still show them loosing power.
There are actually some differences here. After the Cold War ended Israel was making some peace deals. The Oslo Accords(1993 and 1995) and a deal with Jordan 1994 were big parts of that. In 1996 Netanyahu came to power and basically all of that stopped. There was a bit with Ariel Sharon being in power, when Israel gave up its settlement in the Gaza strip. Netanyahu was not prime minister all the time, but he was in government and more often then not in position to sabotage that. The only time he failed was Ariel Sharon ordering to close the Jewish settlements in Gaza. He is really the main reason there is no somewhat working two state solution today.
Trump currently sents billions of aid to Israel to commit genocide AND fight a war within Iran. So yes he is that president. Biden at least used the US military to send some food to Gaza, Trump stopped that.
Khamenei is the leader of Iran since 1989. He is hardly innocent of supporting the Assad clan, destroying democracy in Lebanon by supporting Hezbollah, massive war crimes in Sudan happening right now, with the biggest starvation crisis in the world, although not as hard as Gaza, the huge civil war in Yemen and so forth. Keep in mind that before the Iranian revolution Israel and Iran were very close allies. They even developed fighter jets together. Point is that both countries are not natural enemies.
At least two of those men have formed their respective countries and systems for decades. If you killed Netanyahu today, then it would mean a new election and likely a win for the liberals, which is usually good news for Palastinians. If you killed Khamenei today, then there is a pretty good chance, that the infighting would end the Islamic Republic. Iran has had some massive protests in the last couple years. If you kill Trump, then the Vance ends up president and he lacks the charisma of Trump and is not even directly elected.
Russia could not even prevent Assad from falling to some militia with some training from Turkey, while Iran was also helping. What do you believe is going to happen, if they would try to fight another professional military? They are not even winning in Ukraine, which gets some support from Europe, while Russia has a full on war economy.