Discussion
“The Lib Dems have repeatedly sought to push Keir Starmer’s government to take a more robust stance against a US president who, polling shows, is unpopular with many UK voters.”
What would that actually *mean*, LibDems?
They have us over a barrel. We get a third of our oil from them. Entire organisations and much of government is run on US software. We lease armaments from them.
What does ‘robust’ mean that is not just empty words?
…The US can do whatever tf they like with us and they know it. We do not need an inquiry to tell us that
…We need to face the fact that most of the infrastructure we’ve built is not maintainable. And start creating ecological, social and mechanical infrastructure that can. And use legislation to shift capital from the former to the latter.
Perhaps the LibDems might like to join reality some time
…Commenting on Doughnut Economics 3.0, @jasonhickel recently wrote:
“It shows once again that capitalism is an extremely inefficient system, characterised by high levels of aggregate production to the point of driving ecological breakdown, even while masses of humanity remain deprived of basic needs.”
What is your ‘robust’ response to that, LibDems?
…Andrew Fanning adds:
“The capitalist economic system does not have a goal to meet everyone’s basic needs, and not does it particularly care about destroying our living planet because it’s purpose is to provide additional accumulation, profit and capital to those who wield it…
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
