It’s well known now with the Trump indictments that the evidence is clear that Trump is guilty when it come to the rule of law. But Trumps supporters don’t agree with the rule of law only in certain circumstances and that’s H****r B***n’s laptop.

But the way Trump and his crew made America great if they get a judge they don’t like or a prosecutor trying to do his job and uphold the rule of law. Or a grand jury that acts on actual evidence the Trumpers go on the attack.
That get the names and addresses of the judge, prosecutors and the citizens sitting on the grand jury’s that are just acting on evidence and they follower there leaders instructions to.
(YOUR IN OUR SITES WE WILL K**L YOU IF TRUMP DOES NOT GET ELECTED IN 2024 WE ARE COMING TO K**L YOU) MAGA greatness

(YOU WILL BE TARGETED PERSONALLY, PUBLICLY, And your family ALL OF IT WE WILL GET YOU). MAGA greatness

(THESE JURORS HAVE SIGNED THERE DEATH WARRANTS BY FALSELY INDICTING TRUMP) MAGA greatness


Message to the Georgia judge.

(IF TRUMP IS NOT ELECTED IN 2024WE ARE COMING TO K**L YOUSO TREAD LIGHTLY YOU B***H. YOU WILL BE TARGETED PERSONALLY AND YOU FAMILY) MAGA greatness

Message from Trump
(IF YOU COME AFTER ME, I AM COMING AFTER YOU) This is how you make America great again.

It’s time MAGA folks that this country moves on from Trump he has only proven one thing the only one that attempted to steal the e******n was Donald J Trump and his criminal cabal operating out of the White House.

Vivek Ramaswamy Infuriates Fox News Host When He Won’t Take His Bait to Attack Donald Trump

Vivek Ramaswamy Infuriates Fox News Host When He Won’t Take His Bait to Attack Donald Trump
by Warner Todd Huston, Western Journal on August 17, 2023

The following article, Vivek Ramaswamy Infuriates Fox News Host When He Won't Take His Bait to Attack Donald Trump, was first published on F**g And Cross.

Republican p**********l candidate Vivek Ramaswamy expertly turned the tables on Neil Cavuto when the Fox Business host tried to get him to attack the GOP frontrunner in the 2024 race.

The pair spoke Tuesday on “Your World” about the various criminal charges filed against Donald Trump this year and Ramaswamy’s promise to pardon the former president if elected.

If Cavuto was hoping the entrepreneur would blast Trump over the indictments, he was wrong.

Indeed, Ramaswamy told the host it is the indictments that are wrong.

“I will be unabashed about standing on the side of principle when I say, yes, these prosecutions are wrong,” he said.

“But there are 91 criminal charges in all … as you’re aware, over four criminal cases. They can’t all be politicized, can they? I mean, there’s something that the former president must have done in any one of these that struck you as wrong, if not illegal,” Cavuto said.

“I think, Neil, just because the government has brought a case, if we’re going to be a culture that now starts to say, ‘There must be something wrong if the government has charged 91 counts,’ I think that’s a … people of sheep. And when the people behave like sheep, that breeds a government of wolves,” Ramaswamy answered.

“You don’t think there’s anything in this case, Vivek?” Cavuto interjected, referencing the charges filed Monday night in Fulton County, Georgia, focused on Trump’s challenge of the 2020 e******n results.

“So, no, I am skeptical,” he said.

Cavuto pushed further, saying, “You don’t think there’s anything in this case that shows or even strongly hints of the former president trying to reverse that Georgia, that Georgia contest?”

Ramaswamy, who raised eyebrows Saturday for rapping at the Iowa State Fair, refused to acquiesce to Cavuto’s attack.

“There’s a difference between a bad judgment and an illegal act,” he said.

“I have one question in my mind,” Ramaswamy said. “I’m running to be our next president. I ask, what is in the interest of this nation? Do I believe that these prosecutors or these elected officials or these federal prosecutors are advancing the interests of this nation when they’re bringing this unprecedented indictment, not one time, but now four times over?

“No, I think our country is worse off because of this politicization.”

It is just another example of how well Ramaswamy handles himself in these situations.

This isn’t the first time in the last week that the GOP candidate has proved to be an expert at handling what could have been a difficult situation. During the Iowa State Fair, he gave another masterclass on how to handle someone who disagrees with his politics.

At the fair, a woman confronted him about his stance on the “L***Q+ community.”

“Well, I don’t think it’s one community,” Ramaswamy replied.

“I mean, how could it be?” he said. “Just mash together an alphabet soup. T***s is fundamentally in tension with gay, if you ask me. But what’s your opinion?”

The woman said she was “pansexual,” wh**ever that is, and asked what he thought about same-sex couples.

His reply was perfect.

“I don’t have a negative view of same-sex couples, but I do have a negative view of a tyranny of the minority,” Ramaswamy said.

He continued, “So I think that in the name of protecting against the tyranny of the majority — and there are times in this country’s history where we have had a tyranny of the majority — we have now, in the name of protecting against tyranny of the majority, created a new tyranny of the minority.

“And I think that that’s wrong. I don’t think that somebody who’s religious should be forced to officiate a wedding that they disagree with.

“I don’t think somebody who is a woman who’s worked really hard for her achievements should be forced to compete against a biological man in a swim competition.

“I don’t think that somebody who’s a woman that respects her bodily autonomy and dignity should be forced to change clothes in a locker room with a man.

“That’s not freedom. That’s oppression.”

Ramaswamy nailed it with his “tyranny of the minority” comment. He is exactly right that we are allowing a tiny subset of people to dictate to everyone else, and it’s often a diktat that violates the free speech and free religion rights of most people.

The Ohio-born candidate has disappointed others by refusing to attack Trump even though the former president is the clear frontrunner in the GOP race.

After the Fulton County indictments came down, Ramaswamy blasted them as “downright pathetic.”

“Here we go again: another disastrous Trump indictment. It’s downright pathetic that Fulton County publicly posted the indictment on its website even before the grand jury had finished convening,” he wrote on social media.

Earlier this month, Ramaswamy was also seen defending Trump, calling the third indictment — special counsel Jack Smith’s charges related to the J*** 6, 2021, Capitol incursion — “a political persecution through prosecution … [of] the lead contender in the Republican primary for U.S. President.”

Ramaswamy isn’t the perfect conservative, by any means. He has said some things in the past that should concern conservatives.

But he has been a great example of how to be a candidate for president.

https://storywarrant.com/2023/08/17/vivek-ramaswamy-infuriates-fox-news-host-when-he-wont-take-his-bait-to-attack-donald-trump/?goal=0_e5f62b94d5-6234bed547-363775018&mc_cid=6234bed547

I always have thought that Niel C. was an asswhole

It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.

It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.

2050: That’s the deadline that President Joe Biden has set to decarbonize the U.S. power sector and supposedly save the planet from man-made climate catastrophe. In issuing his December executive order prioritizing a “Clean Energy Economy,” Eco Joe pledged you, the American taxpayer, to spend billions in the next three decades to achieve, by midcentury, net zero carbon emissions “across federal operations”. However, what few are talking about is how unfeasible the plans actually are.

They are not just impossible. They are pie in the sky, flying unicorns, bull goose looney impossible. You may say that my critique may seem harsh. But is it justified? Well, to answer that question, we’ll review what I postulate it will take to accomplish Biden’s plans. First, a brief tutorial is necessary to understand terms. Then we’ll look at the energy needs to determine what the United States will require by 2050.

To start, energy is always measured as power generated or consumed over a period of time. A familiar unit is the kilowatt hour (kWh), which means one thousand watts of power used in one hour. The average U.S. home uses around 1,000 kWh of electrical energy per month which equates to using approximately 1.4 kW per month, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

But when referencing electricity needs across the U.S. per year, we enter the realm of trillions of kilowatt hours. Luckily, there is another prefix that conveniently stands for all those zeros: the petawatt hour is one quadrillion watt hours. The World Energy Council estimates that, based on current trends, by 2050, total global energy consumption will reach 244 pWh per year. Since EIA estimates that the United States uses one sixth of the world’s energy, we can easily determine our share by simple division that our share is 40.7 pWh/year which equates to a generating capacity of 4.6 tW and so-called renewables making up around 20 percent of the current average energy mix. This includes wind and solar along with biomass, geothermal, hydro, and tidal power, meaning that so called renewables will need to replace roughly 80 percent or 3.7 tW generating capacity if Joe pulls the plug on demonized “fossil” fuels.

Since “renewable energy” purists focus on wind and solar, we’ll simply install more windmills and solar panels, right? So, how many will we need? That answer requires a few calculations to determine.

First, we’ve already established how much new energy generating capacity is required – 3.7 tW. That’s 3.7 TRILLION watts. And per the United Nations Paris climate agreement, the U.S. has until January 1, 2050 to add this generating capacity. With little more than 10,000 days in which to build, install, test, and commission all the new generators, we need to add roughly 363 mW of energy generating capacity – 363 MILLION – EACH DAY until 2050. The computation is 3.7 tW divided by 10,230 days = 363 mW.

You heard that right: an additional 363 mW of capacity PER DAY of “renewables” have to be added to the energy mix FOR THE NEXT 28 YEARS if we are to phase out coal, oil, and natural gas.

So, what will it take to reach Biden’s lofty goals of zero carbon emissions by 2050? Before looking at how many wind turbines and solar panels that number entails, it’s important to address several points.

First, electrical energy must be produced as it is used, and used as it is produced. Obviously, there are peaks and troughs in demand. Electricity distributors quantify these fluctuations with a peak to average ratio, which experts acknowledge could be as high as 2.3. Then roughly 15 percent reserve capacity is needed to ensure grid stability. Together these two factors can more than double our 363 mW figure.

Other variations in efficiency and heat loss would further influence the number, not to mention the additional energy necessary to manufacture and install the myriad generators that carbon neutral goals demand. However, for simplicity’s sake, we will omit these considerations because even if we cut our conservative figures in half, the result would still send unicorns into orbit.
So, armed with our 363 mW estimate, let’s calculate how many clean, green generators we will need to add each day across the globe by 2050.

We’ll start with that darling of the green set.

WIND

The Department of Energy reports that the average power rating of turbines in the United States is three megawatts (mW), which is 3,000 kW. However, this “nameplate rating” does not reflect how much the turbine will actually contribute, only its capability under ideal conditions. Since wind doesn’t blow all the time, well-sited turbines average about 35 percent of nameplate capacity. So, a three MW rated turbine would therefore produce around one mW on average. That means we’d better get busy building, installing, commissioning, and bringing online 363 turbines EACH DAY between now and 2050. And keep in mind that these are not Dutch windmills. Modern turbines tower 30 stories or more above the ground, with blades that can add nearly 200 feet to overall height. Positioned too closely to each other, turbulence from upwind rotors destroys downwind machines.

Then, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates about 85 acres per megawatt of nameplate capacity are needed for each omni-directional turbine. That means clearing nearly 31 thousand acres every day, or almost 493 thousand square miles in the U.S. by 2050.

By comparison, the contiguous land in the U.S. comprises 2.96 million square miles in area. That amounts to nearly 20 percent of available square mileage in the country by the time we’re through. And I need to mention that we will need to replace many of them before 2050 since a turbine’s average lifespan is 20 years.

And bye bye birdies; the American Bird Conservancy estimates that wind turbines k**l as many as 1.2 million birds annually. That number is bound to rise exponentially as wind farms expand. Likely so will negative effects on human health. Research from the Washington University School of Medicine reveals problems including nausea, vertigo, tinnitus, ear pressure, and sleep disturbance reported in areas where turbines are installed.

Additionally, going green with wind means a complete revamp of the electrical grid, from power stations to gas heated homes. Perhaps this is a bad time to ask what happens when wind stops blowing and there is no reliable generator to take up the slack.

But never fear; SOLAR is here!

However, you may be disappointed to know NREL posits that a utility scale solar installation averages about 6.9 watts per square yard, depending on multiple variables including location, temperature, and time of year. So, to deliver our daily 363 mW, we would have to cover more than 800 square miles of graded and treeless ground with functioning solar panels every single day from now until 2050.

Moreover, the average lifespan of solar panels is 25 years, so many will not live to see their day of green glory in 2050. And as does wind, solar requires a complete grid overhaul. And every night when the sun isn’t shining, solar will need reliable backup. But wind could help only on blustery evenings.

Another possibility is NUCLEAR POWER, which could easily stand on its own and replace all so called renewables and f****l f**ls, but we’d need to get started immediately bringing 2.2 gW power plants online every six days from now until 2050. That’s a total of almost 1700 new nuclear reactors. But we could save ourselves the grid revamp.

But even if we only use nuclear as backup, we still need between 50 and 90 percent of the total generating capacity in nuclear “for the all too frequent times when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.”

To put things in perspective, the United States currently has about 104 nuclear power generating plants, built over the last 70 years. Some required up to a decade of litigation and approvals from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other bureaucratic agencies. We had better get litigating pronto if we’re going to build at least 850 new nuclear plants by 2050.

So, admittedly, this analysis omits many variables that also merit consideration. For example, we haven’t looked at the cost of each installation project in terms of time, energy, real estate, and manufacturing. Top consulting firm McKinsey slaps a price tag of “around $30 billion per day for the next 25 years” on UN net zero emissions targets. However, even without that figure it is easy to see why these “plans” can be called “looney.”

Another matter we overlooked is the real-life example of Germany, where Forbes reports a renewables t***sition to the tune of $580 billion by 2025. The country is also looking at “a 50 percent increase in electricity prices, flat emissions, and an electricity supply that is 10 times more carbon intensive than France’s,” where nuclear is king.

The punch line is that all this upheaval of world energy sectors is to prevent a hypothetical human caused 2.7° F rise in average global temperature. Perhaps that will be a consolation when we’re paying exorbitant utility bills by candlelight.

Those are a couple of questions I had... on the 150 the towing/load limit seems very good.. the cold as I mentioned was also commented on by both owners.. Local by the way.. one said over 30% the other near 50% reduction in the cold up here.. do not know of solution to that problem.. but like all other, it no doubt has some heads working on it..

Strange, but even now. It seems charging stations are popping up faster than I thought.. along the highways they have popped up from Iowa to Canada.. and going west many more via old Hwy 2 and the interstates..

finding them and keeping locations in mind will soon be a challenge.. but I will still be pushing the pedal to the medel and all that stuff.. can not see myself buying a EV.. drat..