leicsmac

...how badly do some people want the world to burn in the same of their own self-interest?

The official White House Twitter account is like an edgy teenage incel being as offensive as he can to piss people off. Where is any kind of decorum, or even the appearance of it?

Ah, yes. And only then when the subject is not likely to retaliate in any withering way.

Yes, there's a reason decapitation strikes are frowned upon by practically all nations.

I really hope that you're right in that's how it plays out. I mean the ones trying to put a veneer of respectability on it, possibly for the benefit of audiences outside the US (rather than the hardcore ones who wouldn't bother as you say, they're totally at home with the human cost of what he's doing).

People who like to carry water for him by saying things like "it's not that bad, you're overreacting" might be. Giving him a lot of the benefit of the doubt by implying there's even that much of a plan tbh.

On the subject, the proposed Trump budget plan: - State Department: -84% - National Science Foundation: -56% - EPA: -54% - HUD (housing): -44% - Labor: -35% - Interior: -30% - Health & Human Services: -26% - NASA: -24% - Education: -15% And here’s what gets a boost: - Defense: +13% ($113 billion more) - Homeland Security: +65% (+$42 billion) Everything from science, housing, health, and the environment slashed, while the military-industrial complex cashes in.

You make a strong case here. I guess we'll see how the landscape is in a couple of years, but if Reform do remain as popular with the GE coming up I do think that angle should be pursued then, particularly if Trump (as he no doubt will) has caused a great deal of damage by then.

That makes sense, the environment is better for it. Here's hoping that you're right on that one.

Hopefully so, but I fear that's an ongoing thing - for a while the UK had such a positive consensus on that matter, but now that looks on very shaky ground.

On the topic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4vz9jed5lo Hardcore nationalist getting pissy that nation with history of that nationalism and how badly it ends understands that and takes measures to safeguard against it.

But in all reflection on the above, big congratulations to Albanese. Like in Canada, the more Anglosphere/OECD nations reject hardcore nationalists, the better.

There is a lot of time between here and there. Perhaps Trump might do the UK a favour by being deliberately arrogant and antagonistic in the way that he did for Canada and Oz.

Good to hear! And yet over in the UK, the stance of the party that made big gains yesterday on the matter is as follows: [Reform UK's] other main policy is scrapping net zero targets, which leader Nigel Farage says are destroying jobs and driving up household bills. The party also wants to scrap subsidies for renewable energy, allow companies to drill for more gas and oil in the North Sea and fast-track nuclear energy. Looking to boost the UK contribution to the leading cause of the current global biodiversity extinction event. Which is accelerating fast. I can understand concerns about other issues that might result in a vote for the above party, but I'm yet to hear exactly why this isn't a red line given the stakes. Perhaps someone could oblige?

Fair to say, and this is where it gets really tricky. The UK - among other places - has to balance the problem of making the lives of their own citizens better in all the ways you describe here and more, and focusing on global matters that can and will doom everyone if the UK - among other places - ignore them. Often those two ends are at the opposite scale of means, hence it being bloody difficult. Some people may not care about external policies, exactly as mentioned here, but they will end up in trouble as a result of them whether they care about them or not. So it's hard, but it is important, and necessary, to somehow work the two simultaneously, or the shit hits the fan either way.

This still stands. Understanding is important.

...this is of course operating on the assumption that builder 1 and their counterparts are at all competent and have those aforementioned recommendations. Are they, based on what we're seeing on the other side of the pond right now? I agree that positivity is better but people have overlooked both Trumps obvious damage caused and the links he shares with a potential Reform government for too long. There's being positive, and then there's overlooking the negative becoming naive when it's so obvious.

"If you can't beat them, join them" being the Conservative line of thinking right now, then? It's still rather startling to me that there is such a marked difference between the level of Trump's popularity in the UK and Reform voting polls, given that (making the point again) their policy platforms are broadly aligned.

I have no idea why both Labour and (to a lesser extent) the Tories are not absolutely going after Reform/Farage for their ideological alignment with the Trump administration. What's stopping them? Surely "Vote Reform, get Trump" or something along those lines, along with consistently pointing out the obvious links, would be a fair angle to shoot?

Oh, and FAO Farage et al: That the UK contributes little directly in terms of emissions from manufacturing, power generation, transport etc when compared to the big players is true. However, that is mostly because the UK relies on those big players (China in particular) to manufacture, generate the power to do so, and transport all the stuff that is needed and used to the UK. Outsourced emissions are still the responsibility of the nation that ordered the good or service. NB. It's not like the consequences of this matter are going to dodge the UK just because they "contribute much to it anyway". Floods, droughts, dustbowls and general misery doesn't tend to stop to have their passport checked.

Short term self interest. It's not good, funnily enough.

Exactly. Speaking personally, I'd be interested in talking about policy beyond the UK and immigration, too.

If that's true, then why answer (perceived) ad hominems with more ad hominems? There's plenty of people here wanting to talk about policy without taking man along with the ball. the latest commentary Stateside might not be an unreasonable place to start.

Effective automation would be an answer to that. But then the powers that be wouldn't approve of it being used to liberate from work, either, as they'd lose the power that they have.

He just embodies certain elements of our species that we thought we had left behind, more's the pity.