Ironically I think policy support would have been much easier had we put boots on the ground right away. There was initially enormous support for Ukraine, and sending out own soldiers would have given voters a continued vested interest in the war.

Not saying the outcome would have been better, and there is always the threat of nuclear war. However, it would totally changed the course and focus of elections, and my impression is that voters like it when politicians take risks, even if it doesn’t pan out (and even if it’s suicidally stupid).

This is not about his looks, but about the misogynistic content he creates. If you are accused of rape, and you openly talk about coercing women into sexual acts I’d say that it checks out.

Really? Does that also count for Germans during WW2? They suffered a ton more than the Russians in Kursk do now. Just to be clear, I would be strongly opposed to fire bombing Russians (as we casually did to WW2 Germans/Japanese civilians). However, I would say that the current Ukrainian invasion into Russia falls well within the bounds of a proportional response.

It’s quite common to test for testosterone. For one because synthetic testosterone is on the doping list. That’s also why the IBA test is so suspicious. If her testosterone was at male levels, that should have been discovered way earlier with a doping test.

Agreed. Forestation can be a large contributor to reducing climate change, but any scheme that is offered by polluting companies should be viewed with extreme scepticism.

Pedantic, but you can do this by planting a forest (in a currently not forested area).

This is the issue: you can use batteries to store energy for the night during the day. Batteries that store over longer periods such as long cloudy spells and large seasonal differences are too expensive. On the other hand, on a global scale this is really mostly a concern in Northern Europe (where I happen to live).