Dr. Gonzo

He was restrained - any threat he posed was minimal. Certainly no threat worthy of having his head stomped on. Head injuries are serious - if he's guilty of a crime, we're a country that's meant to respect rule of law. The right thing to do is to arrest him and have him go through a prosecution. The incorrect thing to do is for police to commit a crime themselves and stomp on the person's head after they've been detained. This copper deserves a sacking then an arrest and prosecution of his own for his own violent conduct. All the police involved need to be investigated too imo. Treating police with kid gloves when it comes to police brutality will only lead us to the same problem America has. You end up with too many police who think they can act with impunity, making life harder for those who are in law enforcement that don't think they've got a license to do whatever they want... and you end up with a huge number of people that have absolutely no faith or trust in the police, and think getting police in certain situations will only make things worse or more dangerous. Some of that already exists in the UK today, but it's nowhere near the shit situation treating police brutality with kid gloves has in the US. But we're not on the right track unless the hammer comes down on this guy and his colleagues, imo. That footage, regardless of whatever context that led up to that moment, is totally unacceptable.

That's pretty sad

Trump's come out and said he's willing to debate Harris multiple times now - so that's good. I do think her strategy in the debates should be more than just refuting Trump's lies - if she spends the whole debate swat away at every lie, and almost all he does is lie, it's a bit of a waste of time and I don't think does much. Apparently Ronald Reagan would pull a "there he goes, lying again" at debates - that's probably a good strategy for Harris too. She just needs a quick canned answer to laugh off his lies in a way that makes it clear he's lying and if she's rebutting something he said, probably repeating the question and pointing out how he routinely doesn't answer the questions (since the moderators don't moderate a fucking thing) is probably a good way of dealing with him constantly spewing bullshit. Biden spent that debate on the defensive because he didn't know how to respond to lies other than just look shocked that a guy who loves to lie wouldn't stop lying - I think it's a better strategy to put Trump on the defensive. These debates are fucking stupid, tbh, they just reduce the US elections into some kind of idiotic WWE thing where if you get enough zingers in, you "win." So she just needs to go into these with some prepackaged burns and canned answers for dealing with the constant lying, and she should be able to do a better job of making him uncomfortable and getting under his skin - that should be enough for the media to declare her a winner. I'm pretty sure I saw some study though that shows these televised debates make literally 0 impact on the viewer though.

Looks like Trump's planning on ditching debates now. Dunno how that will play out, makes him look scared of debating imo.

It's hard to say. They've got short careers and so much can go wrong/right for a player in their career. But he's clearly special to be that good at that young age. Hopefully pressure doesn't get to him too much so we can just sit back and watch him. I'm sure he'll be very good for a long time. Whether he'll be the best in the world... hard to say, really.

Honestly, I think the US would give more of a fuck about football and the world cup if they were able to stop the matches more so they could flood it with ads. Look at all the sports that are massive in the US and it's all very stop-start compared to 45 minutes of football with no breaks for tv sponsors to try to sell you stuff.

Pretty sure even before the Soviets too? Didn't Hitler want to use the Olympics to show that Germany had a big dick as well?

Pretty sure it's always been a dick measuring contest tbh

1.) Then you aren't looking hard enough. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/us/ten-commandments-wont-go-in-some-louisiana-classrooms-until-at-least-november-as-lawsuit-plays-out/ar-BB1qif1j?ocid=BingNewsSerp + https://forward.com/fast-forward/517874/rep-lauren-boebert-calls-on-christians-to-rise-up-and-take-our-place-in-christ-and-influence-this-nation/ + Amy Covid Barrett on the Supreme Court + take a look at some of those groups that stormed the US capital. 2.) It was 34 charges. They were all felonies. Statutes of limitation have fuck all to do with whether a crime is a felony or a misdemeanor - the statute of limitations says that the NY prosecutors had a time limit to bring charges and prosecute a case; nothing to do with the severity of the crime. FFS mate, aren't you a lawyer? 3.) No he doesn't. In fact, he has so little social media presence that the analysts who were looking online for clues were stumped. The officials now suspect that the attack was not politically motivated, but simply about shooting the highest profile target near to him. @nudge asked you for the link to that alleged video about 10 days ago, still waiting. Found it yet? Also, regarding the last sentence, witnesses from the school and university he attended as well as the nursing home he worked at have said the complete opposite - he was a quiet, calm guy, had no criminal record and no known mental health problems, and his violent act was a surprise to everyone. Honestly, I don't even know where you get half of the stuff you post sometimes. 4.) Paul Joseph Watson is really the last person in the world who has a leg to stand on regarding dehumanising people he disagrees with politically. Where was this fucking outcry when Trump called on "second amendment people" to "take care of Hillary"? The state of political discourse in the western world has fallen into the toilet, but are we seriously meant to take moral cues from the people who thought chanting "hang Mike Pence" was acceptable? I'm not condoning anyone's assassination attempt, but I think Trump can't really complain about the rhetoric getting violent when: 1.) it already was violent, 2.) he's attempted to utilise this kind of rhetoric for his political gain.

It's hard to say tbh. I'm not so sure moderate swing voters are really what's being targeted anymore. I'm not sure how a candidate like Donald Trump really appeals to moderates, realistically. I think really what both parties are targeting is getting their party to turn up to actually vote in those battleground states. I don't think Biden stepped down because he wasn't winning over any "moderates" - I think with this election, you've seen 4 years of Trump as president & you've seen 4 years of Biden as president... I don't think there's many people who haven't made their minds up. I think they wanted to avoid another 2016 Clinton scenario, where it's a candidate that not enough democratic voters in the swing states liked enough to turn up and actually vote - whereas with 2020 there was the ineptitude of the pandemic response and 4 years of Trump's chaos, so democrat voter turnout was at record highs. In 2024, Biden's rapid deterioration had him making lots of democrat voters thinking "I'll stay home this election, I don't like Trump but I can't vote for both." Polling was indicating that democrats simply get better turnout if Biden stepped out of the race for someone younger - which means even if they don't win the presidency, they have a better shot at doing better in congress. And looking at how the donor money came flowing through for Harris since the announcement - she had the record day for small individual donations of $5-$25. That indicates she's at least got more democrat voter enthusiasm than Biden was bringing to the ticket. Honestly, I'm not too sure how much of a role "undecided voters" will play in this election. Maybe amongst the fringe belief crowd, there might be people undecided between RFK and Trump and that might be enough to make a difference. But I think for most people, you're either all aboard the Trump train or you want the Trump train to crash and burn.

I take it you didn't read the article then. South Africa's got good labour laws compared to other developing nations... which I think most people would expect, honestly. But compared to say... where 99% of the forum lives, not so much.

Lmao imagine taking my joke-y image post and treating it as: 1.) serious, 2.) thinking you need to tell me how great South Africa is by saying: it's shit for women and gays here too!

Does South Africa really have stringent labour laws? https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/employment-compensation/south-africa-do-we-really-have-stringent-labour-laws

1.) No not every Christian is far right - but Christian Nationalists are far right, that's not exactly difficult to understand. Christian Nationalists are an enemy of any secular country, as they believe in the internal politics of a society being governed by Christianity first and foremost. That view isn't any less radical than fundamentalist Muslims wanting to govern with Islam first and foremost. And in a secular society like the US, they are an enemy. 2.) Trump's criminal trials aren't political prosecutions. In New York he was found guilty of fraud - that's not even in any way connected to the fedearl government and has fuck all to do with Joe Biden. His federal crimes were related to: 1.) calling Georgia's secretary of state and commanding him to "find the votes" to change the result of an election; 2.) improper handling of classified documents... you know, the same shit that he would have crowds of knuckle draggers chanting "lock her up" at Clinton for. He's not even been sentenced and he's likely not going to be sentenced. He's still free, running for political office. Furthermore, he's been granted basic immunity by his own "deep state" the unelected officials that he's given lifetime appointments to. And I think a registered republican who had Trump signs in his front yard shooting at Trump doesn't really count as "trying to kill a political opponent" - it seems like the Trump-Epstein news was enough to make someone told numerous times to "shoot their local pedo" to go find the highest profile pedo that was around him at the time. But sure, the democrats are the true radicals with their things like: wanting to maintain America's longstanding tradition of freedom of religion. They are authoritarians for wanting rule of law to apply to even those who loudly shouted "law and order" as they violated as many laws as they could in 4 years - not the guy saying "I want to be a dictator" "I have great respect for Putin/Xi/Kim Jong" and "term limits shouldn't apply to me." Have I got that right?