for - 2nd Trump term - 2nd Trump presidency - 2024 U.S. election - existential threat for climate crisis - Title:Trump 2.0: The climate cannot survive another Trump term - Author: Michael Mann - Date: Nov 5, 2023

Summary - Michael Mann repeats a similiar warning he made before the 2020 U.S. elections. Now the urgency is even greater. - Trump's "Project 2025" fossil-fuel -friendly plan would be a victory for the fossil fuel industry. It would - defund renewable energy research and rollout - decimate the EPA, - encourage drilling and - defund the Loss and Damage Fund, so vital for bringing the rest of the world onboard for rapid decarbonization. - Whoever wins the next U.S. election will be leading the U.S. in the most critical period of the human history because our remaining carbon budget stands at 5 years and 172 days at the current rate we are burning fossil fuels. Most of this time window overlaps with the next term of the U.S. presidency. - While Mann points out that the Inflation Reduction Act only takes us to 40% rather than Paris Climate Agreement 60% less emissions by 2030, it is still a big step in the right direction. - Trump would most definitely take a giant step in the wrong direction. - So Trump could singlehandedly set human civilization on a course of irreversible global devastation.

for - 2nd Trump term - regressive climate policy

for - 2nd Trump presidency - elimination of loss and damage fund - impact on global decarbonization effort

• While we have seen renewed leadership on climate by the Biden administration,
• other nations are wary of what a second Trump presidency could portend,
• particularly on climate
  • where they fear he will refuse to honor our commitments to the rest of the world
• and derail four years of progress on climate.

for - quote - Michael Mann - quote - a Second Trump presidency - polycrisis - politics and climate crisis - climate mitigation strategy - voting in 2024 U.S. election - adjacency - Michael Mann - 2nd Trump presidency - exceeding planetary boundaries - exceeding 1.5 Deg C - Gen Z voting

adjacency - between - Michael Mann - 2nd Trump presidency - exceeding planetary boundaries - exceeding 1.5 Deg C - Trump's presidency is existential threat to humanity - Gen Z voting - 2024 election - adjacency statement - Michael Mann's quote " A second Trump term is game over for the climate - really" applies to the 2024 election if Trump becomes the Republican nominee. - Trumps dismal environmental record in his 2016 to 2020 term speaks for itself. He would do something similiar in 2025 if he were the president. G - Given there are only 5 years and 172 days before we hit the dangerous threshold of burning through all the carbon budget for humanity, - https://climateclock.world/ - It is questionable whether Biden's government alone can do enough, but certainly if Trump won the 2024 election, his term in office would create a regression severe enough to put the Paris Climate goal of staying within 1.5 Deg C out of reach, and risk triggering major planetary tipping points - A Biden government is evidence-based and believes in anthropogenic climate change and is already taking measures to mitigate it. A Trump government is not evidence-based and is supported by incumbent fossil fuel industry so does not have the interest of the U.S. population nor all of humanity at heart. - Hence, the 2024 U.S. election can really determine the fate of humanity. - Gen Z can play a critical role for humanity by voting against a government that would, in leading climate scientists Michael Mann's words, be game over for a stable climate, and therefore put humanity and unimaginable risk. - Gen Z can swing the vote to a government willing to deal with the climate crisis over one in climate denial so voting activists need to be alerted to this and create the right messaging to reach Gen Z - https://hyp.is/LOud7sBBEe6S0D8itLHw1A/circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/41-million-members-gen-z-will-be-eligible-vote-2024

The salary of a web designer

• the second inevitable
  • AI will be significantly smarter than any single human
  • perhaps a billion times smarter by 2045

Ohio already has scores of other laws that can be applied where warranted. From negligent homicide to child endangering. Application of existing law is up to prosecutors.

Statists who seek to rule others based on their emotions think "one more law" would ensure that they never have bad feelings ever again - if their opinion is forced upon enough people.

This ignores the reality that the situations they're fretting about are already covered by existing law. The objective reality that "laws don't actually prevent bad things from happening" is lost on these fools.

Requiring firearms to be locked such that they cannot be effectively used in an emergency has been found to violate the Second Amendment, so she's either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

It's strange how the same people who imagine a disarmed populace as a good thing are playing catch-up to arm Ukranian civilians against a military. I've lost count of the children massacred by militaries that are the only groups of people magically trustworthy enough to be armed apparently.

If you left a murderer alone with a room full of kids and a knife for 77 minutes, you'd have the same result - and if you're a student of recent history, you'd know that's exactly the kind of attack that has happened time and again in gun-free victim zones around the world.

To address this issue properly, citizens must understand the #JustPowers Clause of The Declaration of Independence, the foundation that the US Constitution is laid upon; and a universal document that recognizes the rights of ALL humans.

Put simply, it states that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else may justly grant powers to others that we do not have.

If you or I stole our neighbors' firearms, even if we claimed it was for "safety" or "the common good", we'd face criminal charges. We all know this, and the evidence is in our conduct.

Instead, why not focus just powers such has holding adults responsible for the safety of others accountable for negligence?

It should be noted that these people have said the same time every time reform of firearms laws have been proposed.

They have been tremendously wrong every single time.

So why listen to others when they have only been wrong every time?

High-throughput single-cell proteomics quantifies the emergence of macrophage heterogeneity | SCP2019 https://youtu.be/NNLh4nE687I

Collège et lycée : information des parents sur la scolarité de leur enfant

It is a demand for whites to extend their historical imagination and recognize that the ills of racism are not the result of a few bad police officers or a few out-and-out racists in some far-off corner of America.

Hopefully this suggestion will be accepted in the spirit it is offered (gently!) and if acted upon, would not lengthen the intro too much, but rather help clarify the "anticipatory set" of the reading. Although the first sentence is quite accurate, as someone who has been doing extensive reading on the 2nd Amendment lately, I had to re - read this to be sure I understood the assertion. Bouncing back & forth from references to 1) gun control advocates 2) individual rights to gun ownership and back to 3) reference to a well regulated militia is likely to confuse H.S. readers who may have little interest or grasp of the ideas.

Suggest: First of all - since it is so brief, it might be useful to actually provide the complete wording of Amendment Two. (Perhaps above the green "About this text" box.)

Secondly - a note suggesting that gun control advocates tend to focus upon the "militia" clause while gun owner rights advocates often prefer to focus on the second clause re: right to own.

Thirdly - a (brief) suggestion that the two sides do not even agree upon what constitutes a "militia" and that the context and historical evidence for each side's arguments are lengthy and complex.

The second sentence beginning " In the excerpt below, is critical to help set the context of the reading, however, there seems to be room to minimize the verbiage without losing meaning.

Knowing that the founders were mindful of Hobbes, is it also possible that this (pessimistic) passage might have been among the considerations behind the second amendment? An additional document with an interesting passage relating to armed citizenry arguments (for those interested in that question) might be found in the English Bill of Rights (1689) " . . . subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense . . ." Does this passage have anything to do with the 2nd amendment appearing immediately after the establishment and free exercise clauses of Amendment one? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp[](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp)