Dr. Gonzo

Yeah we've been back home a few times. The last time was a few months before the pandemic ruined the world. If you mean permanently - we've thought about it and talked about it. But it's a bit hard to do without at least one of his lining up a job and once we get the offer we'd have to rapidly make plans and figure out what we're doing. We're open to it though. I probably am moreso than her

It's been... 10 years roughly, I think. It's kind of a long story, but I was going mental working at the family business after uni. For a bit I got another job that sort of put me on a different path and on that different path I was basically made aware another degree could open up a lot of doors for me and I was recommended some schools to apply to, including a couple of schools in the US. So I applied to some schools - and the best one I got into was in the US. I didn't really want to go, but after talking a lot with my parents/other family members I got a lot of encouragement to make the move. And then while I was getting my degree I ended up getting an internship where I'd end up getting a job offer by the company that would sponsor my first working visa in the US that was offering me a lot more money than I was getting the one job offer I had back home (if I was getting any UK offers at all, I got so many rejections it was really disheartening). So I took the option with more money, which was also nice for me because at the time I'd also started dating the woman who I'd eventually marry. Now I've ended up pretty settled here, even though when I first came over I thought I'd be back in the UK ASAP

Like @Spike, I'm not an American... but I live here, so I can maybe answer. Tbh, I don't think Biden is "as bad" or "worse" than Trump. With Trump there was just a tsunami of scandal, it felt like every week there was a new issue... and still today, the other parts of US government are still trying to deal with the behavior of Trump that often times broke many US laws. But I don't think Biden is a great president - but tbh, I never expected him to be that great of a president. I liked him more than Trump, but politically he's pretty much a bland middle of the road/business as usual type US president. And Kamala Harris is someone that I think has a better reputation with Democrats outside the state where she was elected as a Senator. But my biggest criticisms of Biden go beyond the big criticism that a lot of the more right-wing media like to hammer him for. They go after things like: inflation & the economic aftermath of COVID, which is his fault to an extent because he's President... but a big part of the issue there is he inherited a mess from a President that didn't really take steps to properly mobilise against the virus and even encouraged people not care about the pandemic. And then shit like petrol prices, where the President doesn't really have more power to do anything. My biggest criticism of Biden (and the Democratic party at large) is that he's kept a lot of Trump's foreign policy the same, while also responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan that is a direct result of the US invasion, occupation, and sudden withdrawal. And I don't think "well I'm the President, so I had to stick with my predecessors deal with the Taliban" really flies when the guy before him didn't stick with his predecessors deal with an also shitty but less shitty group of people in the region. And with his domestic agenda, he and his party have sat on their slight advantage and managed to barely get anything meaningful passed. Trump only really got one meaningful law through congress - his big tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy... but at least that was a cornerstone of his agenda. Biden campaigned on a lot of things but it doesn't look like he'll get any meaningful legislation passed on his watch... and it's looking like Republicans will take the House and Senate again, and then he'll definitely not get anything passed. But he's basically been the President I expected him to be. Moderate Democrats might as well be the moderate Republicans of 10 years ago, so it's not surprising that he doesn't seem too different to Trump.

Yeah he’s not the Glazer family

no they don't CNN's owned by AT&T. NBC (including MSNBC) is owned by Comcast. The largest shareholders for both companies are predominantly US banks. If you want to blame any one person for the huge divide in US politics, better look at Rupert Murdoch... who's also responsible for the political mess in the UK tbh.

These Club World Cup matches are surprisingly tough imo. But it makes sense, the side's usually traveling a much longer distance than you typically would for any other match... and you're up against opposition typically that doesn't get to face a side like Chelsea in a competitive match ever. So they're usually well up for it while the European side can sometimes look complacent because they should (and usually do) have the quality to beat those sides before the final even if you don't play that well. And the quality of the Saudi sides is actually a lot higher than it was not too long ago. They've quietly done with Saudi football what China attempted to do - but imo more successfully, even if it was a lot less flashy and in your face about the large sums of cash they throw at players and managers.

I mean I think the timing of Rodgers departure indicates to me exactly what it says in that thread: we asked Klopp during his sabbatical and he wasn't ready to come back to football yet, so we stayed patient and in contact until he was ready. Which was obviously the right decision looking back at it. That Stoke 6-1 match was rubbish I couldn't believe he survived. But I'm glad he did because it meant we got Klopp in.

Didn't change a single thing either, we remained looking shite for a while

I'm interested in the gossip... what were the lies he told at Celtic? @Inverted you'll probably know

This twitter thread I think is pretty interesting The hit piece looks extra silly nowadays considering the job Michael Edwards did rebuilding our squad

That's actually a really good question. I found this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/health/kidney-transplant-pig-human.html#:~:text=Pigs offered advantages over primates for organ procurement,been used as temporary grafts for burn patients. They say that using pigs offers advantages over using primates for the organs because they're: easier to raise, the organs are ready quicker in the pig's lifetime, and it's viewed as a more "sustainable source" for organ procurement. That article also taught me that pig organs were used in transplants into monkeys and baboons before they were with people.

I think Matt Law's meant to be one of the more reputable journalists regarding Chelsea, so my guess is he's got some contact at the club (maybe even Marina Whatsherface) - a bit like how a couple of journalists with LFC and EFC have a pretty clear direct link with someone at the club for their source of info.

Well I'm not surprised you operate differently to us and City with recruitment - you generally operate pretty differently to most clubs, especially clubs like City and us where the people upstairs are committed to supporting a manager for a long-term period. Chelsea aren't really the sort of club for long-term management appointments, so I can understand when players are brought in that don't necessarily fit the manager's system. Because often at Chelsea, a manager is brought in and expected to get results with the players that the man before him brought in and couldn't. Lukaku's limited, but he's also really good and part of a manager's jobs is to play to a player's strengths while using the players around him to make up for their weaknesses. Conte did that really well at Inter with Lukaku imo. But I can understand Tuchel not wanting to change a system that won the CL. And tbh, it would be refreshing to see Chelsea side with a manager over a player... but it just seems like a massive waste of money, even if Atletico do come in with a good fee. I'd think the Italian giants would be most interested in signing him because he looked genuinely world class in Italy... but I also think Serie A clubs are the least likely to spend the kind of amount Chelsea would want to get back if they do decide to cut him loose. Chelsea have all the pieces imo to operate more like City and Liverpool in terms of long-term planning, and I think part of what was good about the transfer ban from your perspective is that Lampard was forced to give quality young players a chance. And I think that's encouraged Marina Whateverhersurnameis to consider the talented young players Chelsea have as longer term players for the club rather than just as sellable assets to fund expensive purchases. I wouldn't be surprised if Connor Gallagher is afforded the chance to make a name for himself at Chelsea next season, for example, whereas I think in previous years they'd probably sell him after this successful loan spell with Palace. They've had the resources since Roman took over to back a quality manager & they've got a very good manager imo. Really I think it's just the recruitment that needs to be adjusted - they've already got a top tier academy program. But do Chelsea want to change from what's worked well for Chelsea? Because Chelsea have found success operating in the way they've operated since Roman took over - it's different to a lot of clubs, but it's worked.

I think it's bizarre if Roman is ready to cut him loose (again) after chasing him for years. He's a good striker in the right system, it's up to Tuchel to put him in the right system. Also while he's played in England before - he's still spent 2 years at a very different sort of side in Inter where he played very differently so I still think it's reasonable to give him time to re-settle back to our league and to his club's way of playing. Even players that move domestically can take time to settle at their new clubs. And if you do sell him, I can't see him going for a price near what Inter sold him for. So it just seems like it would be a massive waste of money.

I think there’s a lot of evidence out there that among the first plants early man ate, nuts were among them. Idk how teeth could be hard enough to crack nuts but too soft to chew meat

I don’t think that’s true either. There’s evidence Australopithecus (idk how to pluralise that word) has a varied diet that included meat. But I’m not an expert and that’s just something I read somewhere once. Also lol at your lol

I don't think that's true. Our closest relative (in terms of anatomy, behavior, genetics, and how they've evolved), the chimpanzee, are omnivores. Archeologists state that the earliest sources of food domestication included animals and plants. Before plants & animals were domesticated, our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. So yes, early man definitely ate plants - but simultaneously humans hunted and killed their food. I don't think there's any actual evidence that humans only ate plants and starches before eating meat, but plenty of evidence that we have been omnivores for as long as we've been around.

This is completely off topic but... I think your signature is funny as fuck for some reason & I've only just noticed it

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/02/08/romelu-lukaku-running-chances-impress-roman-abramovich/ according to Matt Law, Abramovich's patience (lol I don't think he has any though) with Lukaku is running thin. Might be buying himself a new toy, despite Chelsea spending enough money to buy an island to sign him this summer. I think that's a bit weird tbh.

Minor sanctions relief for Iran from the US today ahead of US-Iran talks regarding restoring the JCPOA (although at this point, I think it's only going to last for as long as the Biden administration will - so probably 2 years at best) tomorrow. It's only really on Iran's nuclear industry and isn't so meaningful for most of the population struggling with the economic squeeze these sanctions are putting on them. But it's promising news for possibly temporary relief for Iranians in Iran, and a rare good sign that talks might be going well between the West and Iran.

QAnon's weirdly popular worldwide. They're probably more open about being "q followers" or whatever the fuck they call themselves in the US, because in the US people are now tying their own personal identity to every political movement and fad that comes their way (not everyone - but a scary amount of people; left and right. Seems like it just takes the right person tweeting one thing for people to adopt those own thoughts as their own). But even with Brexit we saw people buy into emotional arguments (many of which were total bullshit) instead of actually thinking about what the policy implications were. And that was however many years ago - political rhetoric has only been on a rapid race to the bottom now. The right emotive bullshit will stick if you hit the right emotional buttons. And you don't need too many fringe idiots to get bullshit to stick once it's spread enough and hits the right buttons. And I'm just not convinced it's as small of a group of people as it is. To get a mob that size ready and willing to do that, there's definitely a larger contingent of people out there that readily believe that stuff but just couldn't be arsed to actually go do something. But those people will vote. And if those people can get emotional enough and hit the right buttons on enough people, they'll be able to influence more people than just their small group of idiots. If I'm a Tory MP (which I'm going to have to take a shower now that I've typed that out because it's a disgusting thought), I'd be worried that the infighting of the party right now would be something that can't be controlled. Partially because of that rabid base of morons they've spent decades cultivating that'll go do what Johnson wanted them to do when he made that comment about Starmer - what happens if the infighting causes these morons to go spread bullshit about them, and what if that bullshit sticks? Then are they in the position they've had Labour in despite the kid gloves the media treats conservatives with? I don't buy into the idea we've got a well informed electorate that's taking to the polls and I don't have much faith in the electorate at all - even if Johnson is rightly looking dogshit in the polls. They've got short memories who think a guy can't be PM if he eats a sandwich "like a weirdo", etc...

I think those MPs are just acting like it is true and hoping he can ride out the storm. That "vanishingly small minority" are probably larger than we think and have a surprisingly large sway over "moderate voters" who can be pulled one way or another based off emotion rather than based off policy. There are a few politicians that have a gift for making these screeching idiots go rabid as we've seen over the past few years. I suspect those MPs don't want Johnson loyalists to turn on the rest of the party. Infighting with Labour has been a great way of keeping Labour out of power, I suspect internal conflict within a party that's been pretty good at keeping members at falling in line is probably terrifying for them. You couple that with a media that loves a PM mired in controversy for the clicks and you get a load of Tory MPs that don't give a shit about what the public really thinks if they think they can potentially ride the storm. Although I think at some point, the Tories may need to wash the stink of Johnson off them before there's a general election.

What they're getting out of this is getting the people who'll support them no matter what to harass political opponents not based on actual political policies or whether or not they'd be a better leader than the idiot they've foisted into the PM job... but to harass him over made-up bullshit & to spread that made up bullshit to anyone who's listening but hasn't paid close enough attention. Politicians like Johnson wouldn't try (successfully, I might add) to treat this like a game if they knew the electorate wouldn't also treat it like one. But sadly, that's not where we are as a society.

I truly do sympathise. But don't say I didn't warn you about when things go wrong with Rodgers! The man is a manager of extremes - things either look great or they look dogshit.

I doubt he starts tbh. Yeah, I think chances are our medical staff will say it's too soon for him to play, regardless of whatever he wants. He's had a lot of football in a short time - I'm not so sure it's a good idea to have him immediately start after a long flight back to a place with a completely different climate considering he's just played another match & extra time just yesterday. I wouldn't be surprised if he starts on the bench or even isn't in the squad. I think it's more likely he's back full time by the Burnley match. Also what happens with players like Sadio Mane who've just won a tournament but have to return to clubs? Do they get time to celebrate & have a parade in their capital city? Or are they just expected to immediately fly back ASAP?