We may and probably will disagree a lot on how to interpret and implement western liberal democracy. But at the end of the day, we both support it and want to see it succeed.

Of course.

This is why we must refrain from irrationality, instead pursuing reflective and thoughtful deliberations on our common concerns in a civilized manner.

Sabotage will go nowhere.

Agreed.

A small, temporary victory is hardly worth dismantling the entire infrastructure.

This applies to politics just as much as military action.

And this will require the entire political spectrum to open themselves up to dialogue with one another, addressing the concerns they may find themselves initially repulsed by.

(But tell that to the Democrats!)

Indeed.

Impeachment as a political weapon was a bad idea in 1868, it's a bad idea in current year.

The irony being impeachment or not, the outcome will be the same.

Indeed.

I do not want a liberal democracy to succeed

The reason we must shake off foreign interference in our politics.

Why is that, Leo?

Obvious bait is obvious.

Indeed.

How is that bait?

Being racially subsumed is not a good modus operandi

Well, GD, some people come from nations who require centralized economic and social planning abroad, so their governments can benefit from the manipulation of oil supply.

Little do they know, decentralization at home would lead to a flourishing and diversified economy, perfectly able to satisfy all their needs, without interfering in the affairs of others.

Indeed.

This is one reason why factory farming is actually a really bad idea.

Take the Russians, for example, or other Eastern European States.

Indeed.

The environmentalists, bless 'em, have always had this one foible: they tend to see problems through their ideological lens. They don't realize there are other reasons, other arguments to be made, to limit the kinds of things that cause so much damn pollution. They hate coal, but they also hate nuclear, and at the same time fail to understand there are other avenues of attack when it comes to convincing people to go green.

farage's LBC interview with one of their spokespeople was interesting

https://youtu.be/YbsUYhCCQ6k?t=3734

They also don't suggest farming moss or phytoplankton, despite the fact we know that'd be the best route. There are other causes, than human pollution, for the anomalous levels of atmospheric carbon and declines in oxygen content, @Goodwood of Dank™. With a decline in the population of the plankton, which once produced over 70% of the world's atmospheric oxygen content, to 40%, you couldn't make up for this by planting a tree on every square foot of land on the planet.

This is true.

They also seem to forget, or never understood, that the best solutions will always be bottom-up.

melt the icecaps tbh

i want london flooded

You can also correlate a trend in their decline with layers of ash, spewed by volcanic eruptions, built up in the atmosphere, which interestingly continue to be a problem decades after the fact. The reason for this is the slightest decline in sunlight reaching their levels of the ocean causes them to be starved of the nutrients they require, @Goodwood of Dank™.

Exactly, GD.

But, as you see, irrational panicking never resolves anything to satisfaction.

The icecaps melting have nothing to do with sea-level rise, Leo.

Yeah. Sun cycles are a thing. As I've said elsewhere on this server, there is evidence to support a hypothesis that, were it not for the industrial revolution, the Little Ice Age could've become a full-blown Ice Age.

What's actually causing the sea-level to rise is h2o molecules expand as they increase in temperature.

The Arctic ice cap does not. The melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, on the other hand, do.