leicsmac

If they do win, it's yet another sign that history can be cyclic and what happens next in that cycle is rather ugly.

Any one you walk away from.

Rather error strewn, this.

I agree, everyone needs to play their part. (The Chinese are doing better, the Indians less so.) And on that front, part of being a great power, if you really want to change the world for the better, is leading the way. If the US choose not to do it, that's their choice, but what they do both in terms of the issue itself and attempting to get others to follow suit, along with the other leading powers, matters.

Should have scored there.

Pretty blatant foot in touch as Scotland broke there. Amazed neither touch judge nor TMO thought to see our check it. Thankfully it hasn't appeared to be too damaging.

Disappointing.

And a quick response.

Yeah, as sporting weekends go, this one could be going better.

Need one or both of these this over.

I don't think people are accepting it, and I think that they shouldn't. I think, with good reason (I hope), that the current policies of this administration - environmental, equal rights, immigration and similar - seek to benefit no one outside of those who voted for them (and even then it's a bit debatable concerning all of them) and show a lack of concern for anyone else and indeed for themselves in the future. They speak, often very loudly, for themselves. If I'm mistaken and policy can be pointed out that does in fact show concern for people outside of the orbit those in this administration find favourable or show concern for the welfare of non-human life and biodiversity whatsoever, then I'd be happy to hear about them. The details of the policies and orders themselves - a simple one being reversing the restrictions on plastic straws and the pollution they cause. Numerous other examples exist. Like I said, if I'm wrong and this is actually a caring and empathetic administration, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, because if I am, it means that civilisation has a better chance of lasting longer. For me, this isn't ideological - unless you count the preservation of life and of a world that is (roughly) the way it is as an ideology.

Breakthrough.

If these two are still in by the end, I don't think so. Need two wickets.

Have to break this partnership and get Maxwell too before the end I think.

What's your take on the 20 minute red cards, Finn? I think I like the concept.

Slow bowlers making the scoreboard pressure work for them here.

Big Joff with a little cameo at the end, 350 is a decent total.

Need to go big in these last four overs.

Need to avoid stalling here. 360 minimum to make it safe.

I wouldn't, and nor can anyone else while the world remains as it is. The power disparity is too big. But should the world change drastically, as it might, that may change too, and I can't speak for those who are left in that worse world who would be looking for someone to blame. And what form their retribution would take would be up to them. Edit: with all that being said, In not sure why folks should accept such lack of empathy and concern for the future as a done deal anyway.

The US are a major player in matters that require the whole world though, such as this one - with great power comes great responsibility and all that. If they choose to look inwards rather than helping out then that's of course their prerogative - and people should look for leadership from elsewhere. However, should the worst come to pass, it will also be right to view them as responsible and hold them accountable for all the consequences that ensue.

Agreed. The direction Europe takes will be both influenced by Germany and highly vital to the way things play out in the next few years.

It does indeed, as does reducing conflict reduces consumption of vital resources. I wouldn't be sure that is more than one piece in a rather large and complex puzzle and quite a few of the others are needing attention too, though.

Allow me to elaborate a little here as I did earlier; climate change is only one part of a much bigger issue involving loss of biodiversity through that, physical pollution and habitat destruction, to name just a few causes. This is an ongoing issue which is already causing consequences and will cause more severe ones as time goes by if it isn't addressed. Will stopping this particular conflict really address that in any meaningful fashion? I'm not sure. It's patently obvious that Trump is choosing not to make this issue a priority. What I'd like to hear is an explanation of exactly why it's a good, or even acceptable thing and why one shouldn't worry about the consequences coming down the line, some of which are already here. I would have thought that the 6th mass extinction event, of which it would appear humanity is the cause, is everyone's problem. If not, then I would welcome knowing why not. Edit: this is an area of focus because while I've heard defences of the Trump administration on a variety of other important issues - some of them with legitimacy - I've not heard one regarding this.

Well, we've heard from one of them at least. I'm still interested in hearing how the kind of governance that Trump et al espouse would guarantee the continuity of civilisation, given that their focus appears to be very much on other humans rather than the consequences caused by a changing world they really shouldn't ignore.