leicsmac

If your friend is screwing up on key matters, it should be the act of a friend to tell them they're doing so. Diplomatically, of course.

With the vast majority of policy related matters this is the best way. But then democratic governments can and are subject to the same issues of not looking long term enough (or indeed being discriminatory) as autocratic ones, there's just more checks and balances. Democracy is the best bad idea when it comes to governance, but in some areas it has flaws that can be horribly exposed and need to be accounted for.

Realistically, that's about it, yeah. But it would be nice if someone might make the differentiation that while the office deserves respect, the occupant of it deserves none and their policy decisions pose a clear and obvious threat to a lot of people right now and the entire species and biosphere later.

The Trump campaign complaining that Labour reps are doing work for the Dems.Clearly Farage et al were only there on holiday, then. If hypocrisy could be used to generate power, the worlds energy needs would be solved by Trump, his lackeys and supporters alone. But then that was always apparent. Edit: If (heaven forbid) Trump wins, then I hope Starmer has the courage to drop the diplomatic front from time to time when the two meet and be absolutely candid about what a great many people in the developed world think of him.

No doubt this was a situation where the fuzz legitimately argued that the man posed a direct and imminent capital threat to them (even though the reality was that he likely didn't, perception clearly counts), but I would think it is obvious that that is the only circumstance where police can justify using lethal force.

@Lionator has it right just above. Unfortunately, the post I was responding to appears to have omitted that particular bit of historical nuance.

... so now various sections of the police/CPS have an institutional racist bias for people of colour? That's an interesting theory, I guess.

I didn't foresee any other possible outcome once Musk took over and went full mask off regarding Trump, sadly.

I think that the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum are feeling the heat when they bring things out into the open now in the forms of these sentences. How one feels about that is clearly subjective, but I can see why someone buys into the idea of a political motive. It's tragic that the man died in custody - I just hope that he finds more peace afterwards than existed in his life before.

I'm curious if there's a reason for them to feel guilty about this particular matter.

Yeah, both seasons were very good IMO.

That would be a serious coincidence, given the historic correlation between carbon emissions and temperature forcing of air and water. I reckon it's reasonably moot anyway except as an excuse, what needs to be done still needs to be done. Without a shadow of a doubt. And everything should be done to hold such parties accountable for that when (not if) the worst happens because of their apathy and short term self interest.

Yeah, it's another red herring in terms of contributions and those who want things to carry on as they are and let the future and people elsewhere pick up the tab will of course latch onto it. Any excuse to avoid taking responsibility or have accountability. The correlation between increased carbon emissions, human activity and rising global average temperature is what it is. In any case, as you say, we at least have to make the effort to be resilient against forthcoming consequences, but the people you speak of don't want to do that either. They should not be near any kind of policy decision making. Or if they are and things go south (which they will), the mob yelling "who killed the world?" and looking to hold people accountable in their own way should be given their addresses.

"... do you want lies with that?"

It obviously irritates me, too. But at the same time, if the self-interested or apathetic can't parse between the necessity of the task and those perhaps going on too much about the bolded as a corollary, then that's on them and so should the accountability be if things go south. Which they will if Trump wins.

I at least trust any Harris administration to have a chance, if small, of dealing with the problem. I can understand it's the difference between Bob Hope and No Hope, but it's enough for me. If there was a viable third option with a better chance, of course that would be the way to go.

It's a fair argument to make. But at the same time I'm not sure now much detail they can or should go into on a webpage for public consumption. I totally agree more substance needs to be available somewhere and communicated to whoever wants to know, though. I honestly have no idea why avoiding mass death, suffering and displacement has been framed as a left-wing issue anyway. You'd think it would encompass anyone outside the most self-interested and short-sighted.

It's the "oh look, voter corruption is legal as long as the money goes through a few laundry cycles" method. Well, I guess it's a change from good old-fashioned voter suppression of minority groups that is the usual MO.

"Democrats are committed to curbing the effects of climate change, protecting America’s natural resources, and ensuring the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations. From investing in clean energy to protecting our ecosystems, Democrats are working to address our biggest environmental challenges, paving the way to a more sustainable America". That's different to the other side in an absolutely critical way. Of course, one might make an argument about how effective the action is rather than the talk.

In terms of effectiveness/effort ratio, doing whatever possible to get that government change implemented, as hopeless as it may seem right now. That's likely the only way out of this without cataclysmic events, IMO. As per above, it's easy and more people should do it because it will obviously help, but it shouldn't be framed as the only most effective thing an individual can do.

It's certainly a facet of the problem, as you say, part of a suite of issues. You're certainly right about the lack of action that's been taken. For me though, the change still has to come from the top down or it simply won't do enough on enough of a scale, so if that's not going to do it (and it might not) then things look very bleak indeed. It's absolutely something that could (and likely should) be done and it does help. It just needs to be a part of a range of solutions all applied close to each other - some bigger, some smaller. Easy, huh?

It surely is the easiest thing to do. I'm not sure if it is in any way the most effective in terms of effectiveness/effort required. You're absolutely right with pretty much everything you've posted here. My only quibble is, as above, with the idea that becoming vegan forms a truly integrally effective part of that and so "must" be the right way to go for anyone concerned with the future of the biosphere - I mean, I'm certainly prepared to consider it as a working hypothesis, but I simply haven't seen the evidence for if it would be effective enough and how to make it workable with enough people to be effective.

On the bigger picture, the alternative is worse. At least the neoconservatives have enough self-preservation to wonder some about the biosphere and how to make it last longer even if their intent is purely exploitative. Fair point, but when the bad stuff happens (which is will), I'm going to stick the majority of the blame on those doing it and those too apathetic about it to take an effective route to stop it from happening.

Yeah, that seems about accurate. Unless the pollsters haven't accounted for something this time round (or have), then it is going to be difficult. How on Earth has it come to this?