leicsmac

This is far from the only platform I engage upon, but yes, point taken. I'll have to look up Mr Garner, appreciate the pointer.

I don't think it matters, as per above. I've bought into policies that I think, rightly I hope, that have the most importance in terms of actually saving lives and money long term, not short. It's self evident that this was far more than a one policy election and such long term issues were clearly far down the importance chain in the minds of many. Unfortunately that doesn't mean such appeal to popularity makes it right, it just means that people are willing to ignore pretty horrible consequences until they're right at their doorstep. I totally understand that as part of the human condition, but should the worst happen, I'm pretty sure that those who are left won't have such a kind and empathetic attitude towards those they perceive as culpable.

In terms of outcomes, I fail to see the difference between ignorance of climate change (won't use the term "denial", you may as well "deny" gravity) and acceptance of it but then endorsing a government that does deny its effects and passes legislation to that effect. Is there a difference? Edit: climate change isn't the only bad likely outcome of such attitudes, either. Nationalist self interest increases chances of conflict and warfare even without resource pressures caused by that.

... or have any knowledge at all of where such short sighted self interested social Darwinism applied wholesale (in business or otherwise), leads a species. The other side of the coin is understood perfectly - it's one where practically everyone loses.

Not quite got enough support/apathy/denial to go full "mask off" yet, I think. It's a little worrying where we might be soon on that score, though.

I wonder if the list of pardons Trump has granted include one James Fields? Would be on brand.

I think it's pre-emptive of a sort, given that those of a conspiracist nature who cannot possibly conceive that acts of nature can be worse than what humans do to each other will likely be looking to gun for him - there's not a criminal offence, but they'll try to make one up. This removes any potential legal shenanigans.

No, they just thought it was hilarious/just his Aspergers/some other joke of some kind.

... which then leaves us with the chicken/egg situation where a strong economy is (apparently) necessary to implement infrastructure to safeguard the future, but at the same time every single political decision, including economics, relies on a stable and temperate environment in which they can be enacted. (bolded for emphasis). What use is an economic system when you can't grow crops, source potable water or any other vital resource with it? I'm not sure why some folks simply do not get that the future cost of inaction will (not might be, not may be, will) be at least an order of magnitude, probably several, higher than the cost of taking preventative action now. But then denial is a strong emotion. Economics is important, for this issue and others. But it doesn't change the irrevocable fact that this needs to be done either with it or in spite of it.

And Trump withdrew from the WHO. Let's see in a few years time which one is responsible for more death and suffering. You would have thought he would know what it would look like, though. NB. I'm sure lots of vulnerable and disadvantaged people in the US and elsewhere appreciate that joke. Having Aspergers (or being on any part of the spectrum) doesn't make you a power mongering sociopath, Wymse.

It will be sooner than a hundred years, I fear, once decreased resources make the shooting start, and we remember the bad hombres of history from that long ago now. And considering in this case the body count may make all of those bad hombres look like amateurs at the article of death, then there should be, needs to be, reason to remember and hold accountable those responsible.

No, most certainly not. But should the worst happen, it needs to be known by everyone who comes afterwards who was responsible. So there can be accountability for those left who were responsible, and generally for the record. Of course, thankfully we're not at that stage yet.

Sadly, not everyone shares that sentiment and therefore don't share the complacency on this matter. To some, all of the LGBT spectrum are an abomination, do not deserve equal rights and are perfectly willing - and have the opportunity - to craft, pass and support policy and legislation to that effect. That is patently obvious.

"Nothing worse than a monster who thinks he's right with God." - Malcolm Reynolds

I think it will come down to figureheads rather than policy, to be honest. And that will be the test of Vance and whoever the Dems put up against him.

Yeah, that sounds about right. But now they're making that everyone's problem - in the US, and to an extent, the wider world.

I can totally imagine how twisted their manner of "worship" is to a decent Christian.

Then I applaud your restraint. But yes, there are lots of calls for it and other rulings to be overturned, there have been since Gorsuch and Barrett being confirmed to the Supreme Court, and some of the voices are representatives in Congress.

... and Loving v Virginia, Lawrence v Texas and Griswold v Connecticut, too. Among others.

When the same folks that think that think Obergefell v Hodges should be overturned and target it next, will that be common sense too?

Trump with the expected rhetoric about climate change not being a problem at his inauguration, then. When the consequences of that become apparent - as they already are and will only get bigger - I sincerely hope it's recorded that those consequences are on the heads of him and those who voted for him. Because those left won't necessarily be picky about who they hold accountable.

...I don't suppose there's any way this is in fact libellous? It's so far removed from the contextual truth of the matter that it should be.

Not sure he can replicate the same megachurch-cult charisma Trump can. Thankfully. Hopefully.

...remember when he said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would let him get by with it? That's not far away from what's happened. You're right, satire is dead. The Onion may as well just print real headlines about it for the next however long.

That's fair enough. Guess it's the same with a lot of things tbh, again, caveat emptor.