leicsmac

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.

Appreciate the elaboration regarding foreign policy. Perhaps when that's done with Trump might turn his attention to the ongoing decrease in planetary biodiversity due to (among other things) habitat destruction, physical pollution and sheer amount of human activity, because without that all of this is rather pointless? There seems to be, shall we say, a hyperfocus on threats posed by other humans from the current administration (tbf that's not unique to them) which are usually a matter of some debate, but what plans do they have to deal with more natural threats caused either by human activity or otherwise? Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away, and they will cause trouble both in their own right and from causing conflict through diminishing resources. If the current US government really cares about its people, it would consider it a priority and act accordingly, considering we rely on the Earth staying reasonably stable so that every other human matter can happen.

Yeah, @Dunge inferred similar above. It could be true, but I do think that would at most magnify what's already there than create it.

Well, I wouldn't have minded seeing something a little meatier in terms of takes on specific policy and what the future will actually look like under this kind of governance, but appreciate the input.

Yep, and the ideas he represents and their endgame have been obvious for the last decade.

If you've seen the plans for the Postal Service that has a critical impact on voting through postal votes, you'd be worried about that.

... that really does sound like cheap movie villain origin story tbh.

I honestly can't see how someone can so completely abandon any moral compass they have outside of movie villain origin stories, but I guess it's possible. For me, there had to at least be a bit of those reprehensible ideas within, even if they weren't running the whole show to begin with.

...I wonder what any of our esteemed members who were totally OK with Trump winning the election (and there are quite a few, if I remember right) think of his first month or so running the show? Would be interesting to hear any grounded perspective on that score.

It's been death-worshipping supremacist ideals exhibiting the very worst impulses our species has to offer all along mate. Trump winning the election has just allowed people like Truss to take the mask fully off.