Two points of contention:

1. Hunting for sport isn’t ethical in any form. There’s no way to say that killing for fun is an ethical activity. Which is not to say that hunting is unethical, even if you have other sources of food available, as long as you (or somebody) are eating what you kill.
2. If you’re going to kill for food, it’s most ethical to do it in the most painless way possible. I would argue that this assertion makes hunting more ethical than most modern forms of farming. But making things more “sporting” isn’t ethical if you start using tools or methods that you’re not skilled with (and likely to wound or maim instead of cleanly killing). If you’re killing something to eat it, don’t torture and play with it, just kill it.

It might even be worth not filing to dismiss the suit just to get to discovery and see what juicy newsworthy nuggets float up.

Always has been meme.

“I’m sorry, the best we can do is campaigning on status quo, everything is fine, at least I’m not Trump. What are you going to do, vote for a third party and throw your vote away?”

Not very well documented, that one.

If Trump was a foreign asset, would he have done anything differently?

For real. Thermal regulation of spacecraft is a problem that current, non-data center, satellites are struggling with and increasing the load by orders of magnitude isn’t going to make things easier. You can easily calculate the area needed for radiative heat transfer for a perfect radiator and you quickly end up with some gargantuan panels. Perfect radiators are also perfect absorbers, so the whole system goes to shit if the panel isn’t facing deep space.

Harm reduction is typified by an actual reduction in harm. I think the illness you’re looking for is Stockholm Syndrome

Thank you for the example of Dems demanding your vote without offering anything in return. If you don’t like how they don’t represent you, the choices they offer are voting for them anyway or overthrowing the government.