Careful I hear the guy who lives there is known for not paying his contractors.

Their process is more complicated.

For congress to remove Trump first the house needs to vote with a 50% majority to impeach Trump for “Treason, bribery, or high crimes” the house does get to decide if something Trump has done meets that bar.

Then the senate needs to decide to have a trial not a criminal or civil trial, but a trial to decide of Trump should be removed from office.

Then the house gets to present its case proving the crime, then if the senate votes with a 2/3rds majority to convict, Trump would e removed from office, and barred from any future government office. If convicted, VP Vance would become the president until the next election.

Impeachment is a remedial process, not a punitive one, it can only remove Trump from office it can’t punish him for his crimes, though he may face a separate criminal trial for the same crime at that point.

Genuinely curious: What do you see as the significant differences under such a scenario? What are the pros and cons of these differences?

No one should ignore Trump’s tariff threats. Tariffs would hurt the economies of both countries involved. Literally no one wins in a trade war.

The last time America passed large blanket tariffs like the kind Trump is threatening was the Smoot–Hawley Act of 1930. Which had the effect of reducing both imports and exports by almost 2/3 and was broadly considered to have significantly prolonged the Great Depression.

I’m not sure why Trump thinks tariffs are a good idea. He talks about it like it’s a way to get other countries to pay money to the US… but that’s not how tariffs work. Tariffs cause inflation for the US consumer, which is bad for the economies of both the USA, and the country being tariffed.

I suspect Trump framing of this as “external” revenue will be used to justify income tax cuts which will predominantly benefit the wealthy in the US and the expense of both middle class in both countries.

Countries being threatened by Trump should focus on diversifying their trade partners to mitigate the damage,

Americans should be calling their representatives and demanding they put a halt to this nonsense.

I’m confused friend.

The article you linked to says:

… Canadian lumber producers would not be able to absorb this, the price of lumber will adjust upwards ….

Is that not, quite literally, a direct contradiction of your earlier statement that:

90% of the tariffs will be absorbed by Canadian companies

And if the price increases, is that not the consumer paying the tariffs?

Ummm no.

In the real world consumers ultimately end up paying the tariffs.

Domestic suppliers have a tendency to raise prices is response to increased demand and decrease competition from imports.

When Trump implemented a tariff on Washing Machines in 2018 during his first term. The price of imported washing machines went up, the price of domestic washing machines went up, the price of dryers… which weren’t tariffed went up.

Eventually it did led to more washing machines and dryers being manufactured domestically. Which did lead to a small increase manufacturing in jobs. But it was a net loss for the consumers.

Tariffs function as a flat tax on goods. Like all flat taxes this benefits the wealthy and hurts poor and the working class.

Dear Mexico,

How about instead of fighting each other because our mentally disturbed neighbour is threatening us with Tariffs. Let’s instead increase trade with each other to strengthen our economies and let the Americans enjoy the shithole they just elected themselves into.

• Canada

If Russia is permitted to annex any part of Ukraine it sends the message that they can attack any country and eventually take over parts of it.

If the world doesn’t stop Russia from taking Ukraine, Russia isn’t going to stop once they’ve taken Ukraine.

I hate to say it but the NDP need to replace Singh with someone more charismatic.

There’s too much Trudeau hate for the Liberals to have a chance. Too many people will be voting “anything but liberal” this election because they blame Trudeau.

Right now conservatives feel like the only other option because there’s also enough racists to not to vote for Singh.

We need another NDP leader like Jack Layton that people will see as a symbol of change or we’ll be following in the Americans footsteps.

During his first term Trump put a tariffs on Washing Machines. The price of imported washing machines went up. The price of domestically manufactured washing machines was also raised. Even the price of dryers — which didn’t have a tariff — went up on both imported and domestically manufactured appliances.

I have yet to see an economist that thinks Trumps tariff plans will benefit the working class.

That looks like marketing, let their six-year-old design the logo. Half the letters or lowercase and half are uppercase.

it’s not popular

The downvotes you’re getting disprove your assertion.

There is no year 0 AD. It goes for 1 BC to 1 AD.

I bought a dashcam for my vehicle, and choose to use it to protect myself from false accusations.

Body cams should be like dash cams, something used by employees to exonerate the person wearing them.

I’m not a LEO, and I can respect that maybe it’s not this simple… but I would expect “honest” cops to voluntarily wear one to protect themselves from false accusations of abuse of power.

But when it crosses over from protecting the employee to big brother watching over you that’s the line.

Body cams used to protect the wearer - Good Body cams used to punish the wearer - Bad

Yea basically the main contamination issue is that radioactive substances were spread around. Contamination of the surrounding area isn’t the only issue we have to deal with, nor is it the most serious, but it is generally is the most costly remediate.

The contamination problem is caused by radioactive matter spewed into the air and settling on the trees, buildings, ground etc… in the surrounding area.

The main remediation strategy is to remove everything in the surrounding area including the top ~3 ft or so of soil of the and haul it off to an underground landfill to slowly decay for at least a few hundred years safely separated from humans.

My mom used to describe a solution to a problem that worked well as “slicker than snot”

Used that phrase in a work meeting once when I was younger and got the most eclectic mix of reactions ranging from, “ think I’m going to vomit” to full on LOLs.

No.

MW is the maximum capacity not the average.

A nuclear reactor runs at close to its maximum output pretty much 24/7/365.

A solar farm only operates during the day, and even then it only operates at maximum output in the middle of a clear sunny day.

The overall average output of a nuclear plant is typically around 90% of its capacity.

The overall average output of solar farm is 20-25%.

This massive farm will still only output a bit more electricity than what a single nuclear reactor outputs.

A nuclear power station typically has more than one reactor, so compared to a typical nuclear power station this isn’t even close to the average nuclear plant.

Though it does beat a few of the smallest nuclear plants that only have a single reactor.

Nuclear outputs a fuck-ton of electricity for its size.

I respect you for doing your own research. People need to understand the scope of the problem if there’s going to be meaningful action.

The reason I’m passionate about nuclear in particular is that only about a quarter of all fossil fuel consumption is from electricity generation.

Most of the rest is burned in transportation, buildings, commercial and residential applications. We have the tech already to switch most of these things to electricity, and eliminate their direct emissions, but that’s not much of a win if we’re burning fossil fuels generate that electricity. Which is what happens today when electricity demand is increased, we can’t just turn up the output of a solar/wind farm in periods of high demand, but we can burn more natural gas.

Switching to electric everything (Car, trucks, ships, heat pumps, furnaces, etc) will increase electricity demand by 2-3x.

Even if renewables growth is held to the exponential-ish curve it’s been so far (doubtful) we still need 15+ years just to get to the point of replacing current global fossil fuel electricity production in the most optimistic case, never mind enough to handle 2-3x demand.

Massive quantities of new carbon free electricity generation is needed to “unlock” the electrification technologies we need to deploy if we going to avoid the worst of the disaster. If we wait until renewables alone get us there it’ll be too late.

The more carbon free energy we can build in the next 20-30 years, the more options we have. Even if we can reach a place of excess capacity, there are a lot of things like DAC and CCS, that we could use it for that today result in more emissions from electricity generation than they sequester.

Yes you’re correct. I will qualify my previous statement as hydrogen powered road vehicles don’t make sense for now.

The problem at the moment is that electricity generation is not carbon free and in most countries not even close.

Unfortunately the transition to a carbon free electric grid is being significantly retarded by policymakers that are, as you say, myopic. As a result it will be at least two more decades before hydrogen makes sense.

The carbon footprint of lithium battery manufacturing, is small compared to the carbon footprint of electricity generation. Until that changes significantly lithium batteries will continue to be a better choice than hydrogen fuel cell.

Hydrogen may make sense in a future where we’ve eliminated all fossil fuel electricity generation and there’s an abundance of carbon free electricity that can be used to create green hydrogen as a form of energy storage. Though by the time that point comes, we may have developed battery technology or some other energy storage technology that doesn’t carry the same carbon footprint that lithium ion does today.

Hydrogen doesn’t make sense and never did as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in vehicles.

Most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, and has a lot of emissions during manufacturing. But even green hydrogen, which is made by using carbon free generated electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen doesn’t make sense.

If you’ve build new renewable power it’s more efficient to use it to charge batteries than to use it to generate hydrogen.

There might be a case for compressed hydrogen, In vehicles where batteries are too heavy like aircraft.

But for road vehicles, batteries are more effective at reducing emission.

If you’re building any new renewable power, you’ll reduce more emissions by using it to displace coal power, the to generate green hydrogen.

Some day when we’ve eliminated fossil fuel based electricity generation, Green hydrogen might start to make sense. But anybody trying to do it right now is not being as helpful as they could be.