Or let them hunt grey squirrels. Is a bit more challenging target too.

Electric and fuel economical cars are more popular again, because of Trump, but cars are only a small percentage of the global problem. It takes decades of directed investments into alternative energy, while simultaneously ramping down fossil fuel subsidies/profits, making alternative energy compete with the short term profits of killing humanity.
Trump is doing the exact opposite of that. He is prioritizing more expensive fossil fuel energy, making energy more expensive for American citizens, and polluting their air and water, and accelerating climate change for everyone on the planet.
I would wish that there was ANYTHING that I could cheer for Trump over.
I could forgive him his toxic character, if he had some general positive effect on the world.

A silver lining like promoting those cars cannot compensate for his onslaught of
stupidity, cruelty, divisiveness, authoritarianism, corruption, chaos, existential threat,
and utter incompetence, in which only the last of his malignancies provides some relief.
If he was competent, his harmful effect would probably have been irreversible already.

We attacked a sovereign nation without provocation. They have the right to develop whatever they want to develop until they should the intention to attack us. We don’t belong there. Europe and the rest of the Middle East, especially Israel, are the ones who have to confront Iran. The Clown went in for only one reason, Epstein, and he didn’t count on Iran having the cojones to fight back. In the meantime, we, the citizens of this country (and many others around the world) are the ones that suffer. All because a Clown, an a..whole who can’t wipe his ass, let alone be a President, is trying to play with the big boys.
HE SHOULD BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.

But, why are we at war? What did they do to us? You talk all tough but a huge majority, from both parties, think this war is unlawful and unnecessary.
But, let’s say we go on with the war. The next step is boots on the ground. Are you enlisting or are you going to hide behind some poor 20 something? Someone who doesn’t want to be there nor knows why we’re there.
Go on, Dgraff, call me a dumb blond, but, from where I stand, you are a lot dumber than me or a whole bunch of people.

I know enough to SEE what we have for a President

Nonsense. They knew that slavery was a problem but at the time there was little they could do about it as it was. The issue was an extremely difficult one to rectify: to change the entire economy into one based on for-profit labor without destroying the entire nation. Not all the colonies permitted slavery, but the ones in the majority, the larger and more populous ones at the time, did.

Contrary to what many have asserted in recent years, the establishment of slavery preceded the establishment of the United States by many years, and not by Americans. A large part of economy had become dependent on it long before America existed. England itself didn’t ban slavery in the British Isles until 1833. It certainly did little to discourage it in the Americas prior to 1776, so long as money was being made there.

Interestingly, the Dutch were the ones to first establish permanent European-based slavery in the Americas in the 1600s, buying African captives from the native African slave catchers and then shipping them to the Americas. I say European-based slavery because the Dutch were not the first to practice slavery on this continent. It existed for generations prior to even the Vikings’ first forays to America, along with genocide, human sacrifice, conquest for land and resources, and cannibalism, among many other examples of the darker side of human behavior.

Another interesting fact is that records show one of the first registered slave owners for legal purposes in America was himself a black man named Anthony Johnson. An indentured servant in the early 1600s who gained his independence after fulfilling his contractual obligation, he went on to become a wealthy tobacco plantation owner in Virginia with numerous slaves of his own.

One of his slaves took him to court in 1655 to sue him for his release, and it is recorded that Johnson won the case, thus establishing officially recognized legal slavery in the colonies.

Slavery remained an economic and political problem that kept getting kicked down the road until 1860, when Abraham Lincoln (R) was elected. The Democrats, fearing that he had the power to ban slavery (he didn’t, that is, until they handed it to him three years later when Lincoln was able to convince Congress to ban slavery in all the states that were in rebellion), they revolted and we ended up with a civil war that caused 600,000 casualties, severely limited the South’s ability to make money, destroyed several cities, and ultimately established a more powerful centralized federal government.

It also established the de-establishment of that peculiar institution called Slavery.

The ones who kept forcing the issue to be kicked down the road time after time were the loudest proponents for "states’ rights": the Democrat party, especially those in the slave states. Rather than compromise with the North to finally rid America of its “peculiar institution,” they doubled down on it and demanded equal representation for slave states whenever a new state was established. This became known as the Missouri Compromise.

This forced the Congress to make one slave state for each free state accepted into the Union. Bloody Kansas comes to mind here, as slave staters regularly raided Kansas and massacred free staters living there prior to its acceptance into the Union, attempting to keep Kansas from becoming a “free state” and giving the North more representation in Congress.

As for firearms, how many kings have we had in the United States since its establishment in 1776? How many Stalins or Mussolinis?

I don’t mind that there is the private ownership of firearms in the hands of American citizens, until they use them criminally. Other than that, this is a manufactured hot issue, because if the estimated 390 million guns in the country were an actual threat to the nation and society as a whole, especially to the government, the issue would have been settled years ago by the very owners of those estimated 390 million privately owned firearms.

And, you also would not have been able to make that remark above. Like Ernesto “Che" Guevara in Cuba, summary executions for divergence of ideology would be the order of the day, but only IF gun owners were half as dangerous as some like to claim.

But, no. A vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who like to mind their own business and would like others to, please, stay out of theirs, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else.

Then there is this one often overlooked fact that gun violence is NOT caused by guns. On the contrary. They are just one of the many tools used by violent persons to harm others. People cause gun violence, not the other way around. Even before the invention of the firearm, people hurt other people. Swords, knives, rocks, even pointed sticks, have been employed to massacre hundreds, even thousands, at a time.

When you choose ignore that inconvenient truth, you choose to deny the existence of a long history of violent behavior that has stained humanity since we first left the trees and started walking upright. The violence is nothing new. It is the tool that is.

Getting rid of a tool will not change that.

What do you expect from slave owning genocidal rats?

What? You’ll fight the law? Then you D. I. E?

Eh, they get really really wealthy?
And then they start buying everything.
And then everything you need and do enriches them further.
The time of the middle class is ending, and we are going back
to a system of the poor working for the wealthy elites.
Peasants once fought for their freedom and a decent quality of life
but now they give it back to the wealthy elites.