|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 18 2016 09:17 Danglars wrote:
But, hey, if we're going to moral grandstanding, let's also include Cheney's definition: "[it's] an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There's this notion that somehow there's moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do."
His emotionally manipulative 'argument' can be applied to victims of the US as well, in fact that's largely why these groups have such an easy time recruting. America doesn't have a monopoly on daughters, civilians killed by airstrikes in the middle east and suspects wrongly imprisoned and tortured on black sites have some as well, you know. Hell, some of the people tortured are kids themselves. Murat Kurnaz was 19 when he started being tortured with 0 evidence by the US military, this happened for several years, most of those years after they realized he was baselessly accused. And for what? The nostalgia for Dark Ages style retribution exhibited on these past few pages? There's no useful purpose to it. If intel obtained via torture were reliable then there would be a point to discuss it but it's currently nothing more than sadism for sadism's sake.
Let's put aside torture if you have no problem with it per se, and look at the filtering problem for who gets to be subjected to it. How many stories have you seen about someone wrongfully convicted whose sentence was overturned in light of new evidence? How many more times does it happen without new evidence exonerating them? And this is inside the judicial system where there are safeguards against it at every corner. And you can just trust that the poor fucks that run these sites and skip every single judicial step somehow do not have a gargantuan rate of false positives?
|
Legal -> it is indeed understandable that a populist doesn't get so many good administrators; but I'd rather just promote people from within existing bureaucracy than take political rejects.
Of course I'm more of a technocratic style.
And you can promote people who aren't allies. One of the things I'd do is at least consider a position for everyone else who ran for president and had a half-decent showing.
|
On November 19 2016 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
So Trump is sticking with his loyalists and outsiders for cabinet picks. Excellent. I'm guessing that these meetings with former foes like Cruz and Romney are "kiss the ring" meetings where Trump also gets to pick their brains on some things that he'd like their feedback on.
Speaking of which, I have a few questions to ask you about your political alignment, for the sake of clarity. Answer at your convenience.
1. Roughly speaking, where do you fall on the political spectrum? You seem to vote consistently Republican but also share a fair number of leftist ideals.
2. What do you hope Trump will accomplish in office? What confidence do you have that he will do so?
3. You have acknowledged the "dice roll" nature of a Trump choice. Tying into the previous question, what confidence (as a probability) would you assign to Trump being a "good" "ok" and "bad" president, respectively?
4. What were your personal biggest gripes with Hillary Clinton as a potential president?
|
On November 18 2016 23:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 09:17 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2016 08:56 ACrow wrote:On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. Basic human rights. Google Geneva Conventions. A question like that is disturbing to be quite frank. The disturbing aspect is when people like you try to color it entirely one way or another. The rules of war aren't being followed by terrorists disguising themselves among a civilian population and committing acts of war against a civilian population. In centuries past, uniformed fighters for either side were captured and treated as prisoners of war at the same time as spies caught wearing their enemy's uniform were summarily shot or hanged. The last batch of polls I saw agreed that harsh interrogation techniques should be used against terrorists and they're believed to be effective (This was back in the days of the senate investigations on the use of torture and the CIA defense). It should be debated still with respect to what methods are used and on what suspects. The pithy high moral ground argument is absolutely craven. But, hey, if we're going to moral grandstanding, let's also include Cheney's definition: "[it's] an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There's this notion that somehow there's moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do." In other news, I'm all for Democrats putting radical Keith Ellison in as DNC chair. Despite the furor over Trump aide Steve Bannon’s alleged anti-Semitism, there’s been virtually no media attention paid to the man likely to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, Cong. Keith Ellison (D-MN).
The man poised to head the Democratic Party was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam well into his 30’s who publicly spewed anti-Semitism and later in life as a Congressional candidate knowingly accepted $50,000 in campaign contributions given and raised by Islamic radicals who openly supported Islamic terrorism and were leaders of front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And once in office as a Congressman, Keith Ellison more than hinted that 9/11 was an inside job carried out to create pretext for war against Muslims – a trope often pushed by anti-Semites who claim Israeli or “Mossad” complicity – by comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire, the infamous 1933 arson of the German Parliament building, which the Nazis pinned on Communists and thus used to gain majority control of the government and establish Nazi Germany.
To be clear, Ellison has never genuinely repudiated his past anti-Semitism or his close association with the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or its co-founder, Nihad Awad, who has publicly supported Islamic terrorism. Daily CallerIn an attempt to stave off a civil war in the ranks, Democratic leaders are scrambling to unite behind a candidate for the party's chairmanship – and have landed for now on a Louis Farrakhan-linked congressman who once called for Dick Cheney’s impeachment and compared George W. Bush to Hitler.
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress and a leading progressive among House Democrats, already has picked up the backing of both the Democratic Party’s left – with support from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – and its establishment, receiving endorsements from Senate leaders Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and retiring Harry Reid, D-Nev. Fox NewsRepublicans will probably need the extra push when Trump fails to appease conservatives, trade protectionists, and the alt-right leaning nationalist populists. First off, it blows my mind how little you understand the ethics of warfare. "They don't follow the rules of war" isn't an excuse for us not to. That's textbook stuff. Not only is torture a morally despicable act that undermines our credibility as an ethical authority in the world, torture doesn't work, and this has been shown repeatedly. People will say whatever they think their captors want to hear to stop the torture. They won't say the truth necessarily. Second, your credibility continues to be suspect when you link the Daily Caller. Third, most of the things that article said are straight-up lies. To name a few, Ellison wasn't a Nation of Islam spokesman because he was never part of the Nation of Islam, he did publicly denounce writings he made in law school concerning the Nation of Islam, and he never said 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, he explicitly said that he didn't believe that.
The last time we talked about the ethics of warfare, everyone left of center piled on xDaunt for supporting genocide. So I say it blows my mind how unwilling anyone here is to examine what the ethics of warfare looks like honestly and critically. I can't argue with a religious devotion to all wars looking like nation state warfare with standing armies at all. Intelligence experts, former heads of CIA, and commentators argue the opposite on the effectiveness argument, and point to examples when it has worked to save lives. Feinstein's study disagreed, other experts disagree, and the debate keeps being rehashed in the public square despite on side saying the debate is over. How far is too far is still a debate worth having, particularly humiliation just for the sake of degradement and scattered incidents of agents disobeying their own training. Come to terms that the enemy is willing to kill thousands of civilians in an despicable act, and hide among the civilian population when the war returns to their own turf. We haven't also decapitated civilians and POWs to produce our recruitment videos. And the ethical high ground is hard to fathom given how much hot air is spent calling President Bush a war criminal and rejecting legal legitimacy for the stolen elections.
And as for Ellison link your sources too, just don't flatly declare everything the journalist claims is false. Whether or not he gave speeches on their behalf and blamed Jews for all kinds of ills is pretty easy to find. Which is why I suspect he really did those things, in addition to the Muslim brotherhood and CAIR ties. But I should also ask you where your "repented afterwards" charity ends. Is it where the Democratic Party ends? Is it David Duke renouncing tomorrow, you'd whitewash he past? It's alleged he was a vocal radical well into his 30s and compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire. "Oops I guess he never meant that ever" is enough to pave his ascension, or should I also presume you don't think poorly of 9/11 inside job theorists, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood (I'm open minded here)
|
On November 19 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
Legal -> it is indeed understandable that a populist doesn't get so many good administrators; but I'd rather just promote people from within existing bureaucracy than take political rejects.
Of course I'm more of a technocratic style.
And you can promote people who aren't allies. One of the things I'd do is at least consider a position for everyone else who ran for president and had a half-decent showing.
If you promote people from within the existing bureaucracy you get basically Obama (probably a worse version of Obama a la Hillary Clinton) or Bush. Neither choice is consistent with a populist outlook and so isn't possible. And promoting your internal party opposition is definitely a no-no as far as getting people who will support your own agenda is concerned (same deal with why we stopped having the VP being the person who was #2 in the presidential bid and have a Pres-VP combined ticket instead).
Technocratic? Yeah, that's pretty accurate, and I've said I'd use that argument against you if I were running against you. I'd also try to tie you really hard to the failures of the Jimmy Carter administration, who is probably the best example of a technocratic leadership in recent history. I'm sure if you were running on the Dem ticket then any Republican would do the same.
|
On November 18 2016 23:15 LegalLord wrote:
There's no defending how bad Trump's picks are in general. However, I want to draw attention to the fact that the alternative isn't "basic competent choices for every position" but rather Hillary Clinton. She would make some rather unpleasant choices as well if she were the pick.
From what I've read, the majority of his picks have been great from my perspective. Reince was my big exception, though if he only plays a narrow role it could be alright. I'm waiting to see who's in for Secretary of State and secretary of defense because some bad names are rumored to be in the running.
I can somewhat sympathize with the experience argument. He's promised to drain the swamp. He can't afford to pull entirely from people with decades of D.C. experience. He does need people like Ryan in an advisory role to teach on legislative policy goals and the ways and means of achieving them. If Sessions or Cruz is appointed AG, that would be great for reforming the justice department from Holder & Lynch's tenure.
|
Sessions was denied confirmation for a judgeship before due to his racist past. Maybe the same will happen here.
|
I can't believe he's actually using Sessions. Is anyone happy about Sessions? He doesn't even seem to be well liked on the right.
|
Some people also neither like the left nor the right.
|
On November 19 2016 01:07 JinDesu wrote:
Some people also neither like the left nor the right.
Like Ted Cruz, who is still here and still wrong?
|
Jeff Sessions as Attorney General is bad fucking news... I keep telling myself maybe it won't be as bad as it seems but he's certainly not picking people I'd like to see around the POTUS...
|
On November 19 2016 00:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 23:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 18 2016 09:17 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2016 08:56 ACrow wrote:On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. Basic human rights. Google Geneva Conventions. A question like that is disturbing to be quite frank. The disturbing aspect is when people like you try to color it entirely one way or another. The rules of war aren't being followed by terrorists disguising themselves among a civilian population and committing acts of war against a civilian population. In centuries past, uniformed fighters for either side were captured and treated as prisoners of war at the same time as spies caught wearing their enemy's uniform were summarily shot or hanged. The last batch of polls I saw agreed that harsh interrogation techniques should be used against terrorists and they're believed to be effective (This was back in the days of the senate investigations on the use of torture and the CIA defense). It should be debated still with respect to what methods are used and on what suspects. The pithy high moral ground argument is absolutely craven. But, hey, if we're going to moral grandstanding, let's also include Cheney's definition: "[it's] an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There's this notion that somehow there's moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do." In other news, I'm all for Democrats putting radical Keith Ellison in as DNC chair. Despite the furor over Trump aide Steve Bannon’s alleged anti-Semitism, there’s been virtually no media attention paid to the man likely to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, Cong. Keith Ellison (D-MN).
The man poised to head the Democratic Party was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam well into his 30’s who publicly spewed anti-Semitism and later in life as a Congressional candidate knowingly accepted $50,000 in campaign contributions given and raised by Islamic radicals who openly supported Islamic terrorism and were leaders of front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And once in office as a Congressman, Keith Ellison more than hinted that 9/11 was an inside job carried out to create pretext for war against Muslims – a trope often pushed by anti-Semites who claim Israeli or “Mossad” complicity – by comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire, the infamous 1933 arson of the German Parliament building, which the Nazis pinned on Communists and thus used to gain majority control of the government and establish Nazi Germany.
To be clear, Ellison has never genuinely repudiated his past anti-Semitism or his close association with the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or its co-founder, Nihad Awad, who has publicly supported Islamic terrorism. Daily CallerIn an attempt to stave off a civil war in the ranks, Democratic leaders are scrambling to unite behind a candidate for the party's chairmanship – and have landed for now on a Louis Farrakhan-linked congressman who once called for Dick Cheney’s impeachment and compared George W. Bush to Hitler.
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress and a leading progressive among House Democrats, already has picked up the backing of both the Democratic Party’s left – with support from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – and its establishment, receiving endorsements from Senate leaders Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and retiring Harry Reid, D-Nev. Fox NewsRepublicans will probably need the extra push when Trump fails to appease conservatives, trade protectionists, and the alt-right leaning nationalist populists. First off, it blows my mind how little you understand the ethics of warfare. "They don't follow the rules of war" isn't an excuse for us not to. That's textbook stuff. Not only is torture a morally despicable act that undermines our credibility as an ethical authority in the world, torture doesn't work, and this has been shown repeatedly. People will say whatever they think their captors want to hear to stop the torture. They won't say the truth necessarily. Second, your credibility continues to be suspect when you link the Daily Caller. Third, most of the things that article said are straight-up lies. To name a few, Ellison wasn't a Nation of Islam spokesman because he was never part of the Nation of Islam, he did publicly denounce writings he made in law school concerning the Nation of Islam, and he never said 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, he explicitly said that he didn't believe that. The last time we talked about the ethics of warfare, everyone left of center piled on xDaunt for supporting genocide. So I say it blows my mind how unwilling anyone here is to examine what the ethics of warfare looks like honestly and critically. I can't argue with a religious devotion to all wars looking like nation state warfare with standing armies at all. Intelligence experts, former heads of CIA, and commentators argue the opposite on the effectiveness argument, and point to examples when it has worked to save lives. Feinstein's study disagreed, other experts disagree, and the debate keeps being rehashed in the public square despite on side saying the debate is over. How far is too far is still a debate worth having, particularly humiliation just for the sake of degradement and scattered incidents of agents disobeying their own training. Come to terms that the enemy is willing to kill thousands of civilians in an despicable act, and hide among the civilian population when the war returns to their own turf. We haven't also decapitated civilians and POWs to produce our recruitment videos. And the ethical high ground is hard to fathom given how much hot air is spent calling President Bush a war criminal and rejecting legal legitimacy for the stolen elections. And as for Ellison link your sources too, just don't flatly declare everything the journalist claims is false. Whether or not he gave speeches on their behalf and blamed Jews for all kinds of ills is pretty easy to find. Which is why I suspect he really did those things, in addition to the Muslim brotherhood and CAIR ties. But I should also ask you where your "repented afterwards" charity ends. Is it where the Democratic Party ends? Is it David Duke renouncing tomorrow, you'd whitewash he past? It's alleged he was a vocal radical well into his 30s and compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire. "Oops I guess he never meant that ever" is enough to pave his ascension, or should I also presume you don't think poorly of 9/11 inside job theorists, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood (I'm open minded here)
We had a critical discussion of the use of genocide. You just labeled it this way because you didn't like the answer that people came to.
As for Ellison, transcripts of that speech show that he was comparing the response of the government to 9/11 to the response of the German government to the Reichstag Fire. He even explicitly said that he doesn't believe 9/11 conspiracy theories to Katherine Kersten of the Start Tribune in 2007.
I also find it funny that you are one of the people constantly screaming about "media bias!", yet you don't put the slightest effort into actually taking a slightly more objective look at Ellison's stories, and instead rely on a bunch of tabloids to "inform" you of the news. It seems you only care about "media bias" when the media presented goes contrary to your preconceived notions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/why-keith-ellison-is-a-bold-pick-for-dnc-chair-and-a-controversial-one/
A story from a slightly more respectable news source would've given you more credibility.
And another one, actually laying out his involvement with the Nation of Islam and his explicit denouncement of it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000951.html
As for his wildly anti-Semitic remarks, quote them please, or I'm just going to call more B.S. on you.
|
On November 19 2016 00:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
Legal -> it is indeed understandable that a populist doesn't get so many good administrators; but I'd rather just promote people from within existing bureaucracy than take political rejects.
Of course I'm more of a technocratic style.
And you can promote people who aren't allies. One of the things I'd do is at least consider a position for everyone else who ran for president and had a half-decent showing. If you promote people from within the existing bureaucracy you get basically Obama (probably a worse version of Obama a la Hillary Clinton) or Bush. Neither choice is consistent with a populist outlook and so isn't possible. And promoting your internal party opposition is definitely a no-no as far as getting people who will support your own agenda is concerned (same deal with why we stopped having the VP being the person who was #2 in the presidential bid and have a Pres-VP combined ticket instead). Technocratic? Yeah, that's pretty accurate, and I've said I'd use that argument against you if I were running against you. I'd also try to tie you really hard to the failures of the Jimmy Carter administration, who is probably the best example of a technocratic leadership in recent history. I'm sure if you were running on the Dem ticket then any Republican would do the same.
Having incompetent administators doesn't seem like a good idea either. if you don't promote from within or from gov't, and you can't promote from business cuz you want to drain the swamp, and populism isn't big on academics, you're left with nothing. You're left with people who don't actually know the topics well.
I care little about what people would use a political tactic; I care mostly about the actual truth and producing an actually effective government. That seems like something far more worth focusing on than what political tactics would be used. Also more inclusive.
why are you so focused on the political response and tactics?
|
Too racist for 1986. Just right for 2017. T_T
|
You have to get elected to hold most offices of significance, and for the rest you usually take people who used to hold elected offices. Being unwilling to acknowledge that is akin to saying "I don't care what people would think of how I'd be as a political figure." Not a recipe for success.
Populism is a tough game to play well. But it's what it is. The Trump loyalists seem happy with him so I will take most of the gripes to mean that people are unhappy about losing.
|
On November 19 2016 00:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
So Trump is sticking with his loyalists and outsiders for cabinet picks. Excellent. I'm guessing that these meetings with former foes like Cruz and Romney are "kiss the ring" meetings where Trump also gets to pick their brains on some things that he'd like their feedback on. Speaking of which, I have a few questions to ask you about your political alignment, for the sake of clarity. Answer at your convenience. 1. Roughly speaking, where do you fall on the political spectrum? You seem to vote consistently Republican but also share a fair number of leftist ideals.
I'm probably center-right on balance. It's hard to place me because I vary wildly. On many cultural and nationalism issues, I'm Attila the Hun. However, I also support baseline government-provided health insurance, which is clearly a major heresy among republicans. I also have a bit of a libertarian streak as it pertains to the big social issues, though for the most part, I really don't care about those issues because they've all been judicially settled.
2. What do you hope Trump will accomplish in office? What confidence do you have that he will do so?
My biggest hope is that he fixes our immigration system, and I think that he has a very good shot at getting something done here. The other things that he campaigned on are added bonuses, and I agree with him philosophically on much of what he wants to accomplish. I'm particularly interested in seeing how far he gets with "draining the swamp," because DC is very clearly out of control.
On a side note -- not so much related to policy as culture -- I absolutely love the fact that Trump's election was the equivalent of a nuclear bomb going off in SJW-land. The panic in that bankrupt segment of the left is glorious to behold, and the fact that they're still in denial over their role in all of this guarantees their eventual demise.
3. You have acknowledged the "dice roll" nature of a Trump choice. Tying into the previous question, what confidence (as a probability) would you assign to Trump being a "good" "ok" and "bad" president, respectively?
I'm cautiously optimistic, so I guess that you could say that my expectation is that he'll be in the okay to good range. However, he does seem to be following through with his campaign promises. He's a serious man. He may very well be the second coming of Reagan.
4. What were your personal biggest gripes with Hillary Clinton as a potential president?
She's corrupt and she has terrible judgment. And I hope that Democrats never embrace these truths. That said, she probably wouldn't have been a disaster policy-wise. It would have just been more of the same of what we've had for the past 8 years, with a higher likelihood of war.
|
On November 19 2016 01:49 LegalLord wrote:
You have to get elected to hold most offices of significance, and for the rest you usually take people who used to hold elected offices. Being unwilling to acknowledge that is akin to saying "I don't care what people would think of how I'd be as a political figure." Not a recipe for success.
Populism is a tough game to play well. But it's what it is. The Trump loyalists seem happy with him so I will take most of the gripes to mean that people are unhappy about losing.
and tha'ts why i'm a lousy politician. i'm too interested in actual sound administration, well-designed laws, and thoughtful policy, than in what most of the actual stuff that happens in politics is 
|
On November 19 2016 01:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 01:49 LegalLord wrote:
You have to get elected to hold most offices of significance, and for the rest you usually take people who used to hold elected offices. Being unwilling to acknowledge that is akin to saying "I don't care what people would think of how I'd be as a political figure." Not a recipe for success.
Populism is a tough game to play well. But it's what it is. The Trump loyalists seem happy with him so I will take most of the gripes to mean that people are unhappy about losing. and tha'ts why i'm a lousy politician. i'm too interested in actual sound administration, well-designed laws, and thoughtful policy, than in what most of the actual stuff that happens in politics is
Well that's like saying "I'm interested in science, but I'm not interested in all the tedious manual work that need to be done on the way to making real progress." The game comes with its own set of rules and ignoring them is the best way to never make it anywhere.
|
On November 19 2016 02:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 01:53 zlefin wrote:On November 19 2016 01:49 LegalLord wrote:
You have to get elected to hold most offices of significance, and for the rest you usually take people who used to hold elected offices. Being unwilling to acknowledge that is akin to saying "I don't care what people would think of how I'd be as a political figure." Not a recipe for success.
Populism is a tough game to play well. But it's what it is. The Trump loyalists seem happy with him so I will take most of the gripes to mean that people are unhappy about losing. and tha'ts why i'm a lousy politician. i'm too interested in actual sound administration, well-designed laws, and thoughtful policy, than in what most of the actual stuff that happens in politics is Well that's like saying "I'm interested in science, but I'm not interested in all the tedious manual work that need to be done on the way to making real progress." The game comes with its own set of rules and ignoring them is the best way to never make it anywhere.
I'd disagree slightly wiht that remark.
I'm fine doing the manual work of science.
And I think most people should want their gov't to focus on being very ethical and making good decisions, rather than what it actually does.
and I believe government should be restructured so it does that.
|
Unfortunately Trump's rural supporters will be the most insulated from the secondary effects of climate change. Of course a lot of people will be joining them at some point, so maybe not. But it will be interesting to see, several decades down the road, the reaction of those who denied climate change (I guess that crowd will have mostly died off, imagine that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
