Dr. Gonzo

I think it was referred to an ethics board for review in January, but since then I haven’t heard anyone talk about it. But it was the second one - charging higher rates for the secret service that had to follow him around to his properties. The Russian claims are weird because the story kept changing, and the Mueller report - if you read the whole thing in full - says that some weird coordination probably did happen, but he could not recommend further action against a president. This paragraph from the wiki of it explains why the Mueller report is at least a bit troubling: “Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime. This decision was based on an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution, and Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment. As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him", with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence. The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation". The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,referencing impeachment.” (from here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report) And it was weird seeing a US president say so much that sort of looked like what you’d see in opinion articles on RT Honestly though in 2021… the US & Western world talks a big talk on human rights, corruption, and law and order - but are keen to hop into bed with the Saudis and keen to keep strong business ties with China… I do think there’s maybe a case for western countries trying to change countries through diplomacy and influence through closer ties. But I dunno if I’d make that case for Putin’s Russia. They just seem belligerent - even ignoring any claims of election interference anywhere in the world - the annexation of Crimea & using our country as a killing ground for ex-spies (and killing/harming innocent people in the process)… I understand why we’ve got frostier ties with Russia than we did say 10 years ago.

I mean there’s the whole calling Georgia’s elected officials and trying to get them to change election results - that’s probably the closest to Watergate in terms of pure illegality with political purpose. But most of his corruption was in funneling taxpayer money to properties he owned. Think it was something like $70m of taxpayer money going to him

Made dumplings and ramen and put them together

I think corruption in politics (not just US politics) is... sort of normal. It shouldn't be - but it is. Especially in the US where there's basically unlimited campaign contributions (which is basically just legalised bribery) - it's how you end up with so many laws that were written by lobbyists and corporations rather than the lawmakers that claim to have written them (and that's been caught happening a lot in the US, but nothing really happens with it). I dunno if any other western leaders were as brazen as Trump was, with the whole funneling as much taxpayer money into his hotels & golf resorts any opportunity he got. He did break laws as president, but they probably won't be enforced because US politics is full of similar corruption and it would mean a lot of politicians going after each other in a pretty hypocritical way. I actually think it's a massive problem for America because money is such a huge part of their political machine... and there's no real incentive for lawmakers to pass laws that wash away the stink of the corruption. They're allowed to make stock trades with inside knowledge of how laws will change too (and a few got caught selling their stocks after they were briefed on how bad covid would be and before the market crashed - all while they were trying to minimise how bad covid would impact the economy). But personally, I can't understand how anyone would vote for Trump after hearing him perform in those first debates. The guy is shit at stringing coherent sentences together & contradicts himself all the time if you give him enough time to talk... but in politics the electorate is often more motivated by emotion than reason and some political issues he did a very good job of hitting the right emotional notes. As president, I think he also did a good job hitting the emotional notes that made him lose a lot of moderate support compared to Biden... so it swings both ways. I honestly expect every US politician to be at least a little bit corrupt, I don't think there's much ethics in politics... especially US politics. Imo there's never really been a "good" US President in my lifetime... but I do think Trump's open corruption puts him down in the rankings with Bush (who is, imo, the worst US president in my lifetime for his war crimes and the damage he did to the Middle East and his spread of global terrorist groups - some of which the US is now backing in some countries and fighting in others).

Yeah, I think that's exactly what's happening. Biden's agenda is being held up by 2 democrats just as much as it's being held up by the Republicans. One of them wants both parties to meet him in the middle, the other... well... I don't know what she really wants tbh. I think she wants more lobbyist and corporate money coming in for her next election campaign... even though that's in 4 years. But I think with how divided everything is in America, everything is going to be a fight to and every president's agenda will be held up unless there is less of a split in the senate (or house, but in this case the house is comfortably under the democrats control - but the senate has an even split, so two senators differing from their party can hold everything up). Tbh, it makes sense if you think about it purely politically. Sure, nothing meaningful really changes for any of the citizens of the country (and I think that's why consistently congress has generally low approval ratings year in year out)... but it's an effective way at taking power from the other party and winning seats without actually having to do anything. And that's why both parties play the same game at the expense of the taxpayers. Power and prestige for minimal effort on their part.

Imo both parties use stalling on passing a budget and forcing government shutdowns as a political tool for stopping the other party's Presidential agenda dead in it's tracks prior to midterm elections to try to make the president's party look as bad as possible, so they win more seats during the midterm elections. And I think historically it's actually worked out for both parties using it that way... so they probably don't see much incentive to change things.

I think the Trump University (btw those words together are actually quite funny) scandal and the links to Iran's Revolutionary Guard funding are two separate things. One was a for-profit school accused of defrauding it's students - the students sued and after fighting in court for a bit Trump University eventually settled with the plaintiffs. The other was Trump's hotel in Baku accused of money laundering for the Revolutionary Guard. Which, btw, they're not really terrorists - that would be a bit like saying the Royal Marines are a terrorist organisation; they're a military branch of Iran - but unlike the army/navy/air force there... their loyalty is to the Supreme Leader, rather than the country. They're designated a terrorist group by the US... but they're a million miles away from groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. Honestly the best comparison I can think of with the Revolutionary Guard is they're a bit like the Waffen SS of Nazi Germany. They're a part of the military, but it's made up of the ideological diehards who have to volunteer and then pass selection (ideological purity tests, really) if they want to serve there. I think they're awful, awful people... but they're not terrorists because they're part of a sovereign country's military. The issue there wasn't so much Trump was aiding terrorists... but rather Trump was finding a way for Iran to avoid the effect of US sanctions. And tbh, I'm not sure if I believe that was the case because he had imposed incredibly harsh sanctions on Iran after becoming president. And I don't think the evidence that came out against him was all that... good... because nothing ever happened. Could he have imposed harsher sanctions in hopes it would lead the IRGC to launder more money through his Azerbaijan hotel? Maybe - but without proof it's a bit of a conspiracy theory. I think there's plenty to criticise Trump with that's factually provable (like the Trump University scandal & the January 6 insurrection) rather than the more tenuous stuff (like this IRGC stuff or him getting pissed on by Russians on camera).

I think a few years back, they didn't pass the budget after the last one had expired and there was a government shutdown that lasted for a short while. I think it caused a lot of anxiety for people who work for the federal government... as well as for the people who provide services for the federal government but are employed by someone else. The last budget expired at the end of last month, but they got a last minute deal to fund the government until just right before Christmas. You're absolutely right that it's used as a political football, and honestly I think it's borderline criminal up that they're likely going to be holding civil servants' wages hostage right before Christmas so then both parties can squabble over little political points rather than pass any meaningful laws. I also can't see something like that happening in the UK. Or really... most countries. I think most countries require budgets being passed and have some sort of better system in place than what America does with it's government shutdowns. I think in the UK if a budget can't be agreed by passing the Finance Bill then it would lead to a vote of No Confidence as it's seen as a big failure of the government to command the House of Commons - so by itself not passing the Finance Bill wouldn't cause a general election... but the subsequent No Confidence vote likely would. I think in a situation like that though it might be likely a party would vote for confidence in their own government and attempt to renegotiate a finance bill that would likely pass. I think in the 90s there was a failure to pass a Finance Bill but it didn't lead to a no confidence vote... so I'm actually not sure how it would work out in terms of parliamentary procedure. I feel like someone like @The Premier Steve'sor @Inverted would know better than me

The thing about Sweden and the way it handled coronavirus is they've got a much less denser population than many other countries. So what works with them might not work with other countries. I, personally, can understand some objections to "vaccine passports" - although I think for things like international travel, where certain countries require certain vaccines... that's nothing new and that shouldn't really be an issue - and countries should be able to have laws like that to protect their populations. Personally, I don't mind it if private businesses require proof of vaccination. I do think if the government is going around giving tickets to unvaccinated people outside though, that's probably a step too far. I'm also surprised it's been such a polarising issue pretty much everywhere... but I guess that's just the world we live in today. And really if there's one thing that marks American politics... it's polarisation. So many things have become big divisive issues - so the chasm between republicans and democrats is massive. There's even a big split between the moderates and left wing of the democrats to further highlight the divisiveness. It's honestly a bit similar to the UK in some regards - although I think there's less of a chasm between all parties in the UK, but the infighting of labour is a lot like the infighting of the democrats. And tbf in most countries, the democratic party of the US would be probably two distinct parties (lib dem and labour probably if we wanted to use the parallel) - but the US's 2 party system sort of forces anything "left of centre" to fall under the umbrella of "democrat." Apparently both parties had left wing and right wing factions in their parties (which probably meant for more opportunity for compromise) It really just makes it hard to get anything done politically in the US. I know the UK has sort of fallen into the trap of imitating US politics a lot - but I really wish it wouldn't. In the UK, tories, labour, lib dems, green... all have more in common with themselves than they do with any of the US parties. And treating politics like it's a spectator sport - which is really how it seems in the US - I think ends up harming the country at the end of the day. One big difference with the UK and our parliamentary system means that when there's no room for bipartisan compromise... the party running the government can still get things done. In the US it creates this horrible problem where it's hard for anything meaningful to get done. They (all politicians) need to stop thinking of their political parties so much as "teams" and start treating the country like it's all the same team - and the parties are just the different people who could possibly captain the team.

Animals in the west are getting vaccine rollouts - I dunno if it's the same vaccines humans get... but if it is that's pretty appalling considering the developing world is in serious need of vaccines. The longer the developing world struggles with COVID, the longer this global pandemic continues longer than it needs to.

It's between Trump and De Santis for the republican nomination in 2024 tbh. I suspect the democrats will lose big in the 2022 midterm elections and I think it's really likely there's another republican in office in 2024... and I think it will be either Trump or De Santis. Tbh, neither really fills me with confidence. With Trump you know exactly what you're getting, but he's so divisive it'd be just like his first 4 years - he'd get maybe another tax reform bill passed but after that it'd likely be the same gridlock we saw the last time around & what we see with Biden as well. De Santis is Trumpy but he's a lot smarter and has been playing the political game for a lot longer. I think he could get more done than Trump could. Would what he gets done be any good? I'm not so sure. I don't really like either of them, I think most general Republican politics are so right wing they'd make many conservative Tories blush. Very few moderates left in the party. But I also don't think democrats are that great - so ineffectual at governing really. Neither party can really put forth anyone that the other side remotely finds palatable it seems. Honestly, the vaccine freedom stuff is so polarising - not just in the US but a lot of the Anglosphere. Personally, I don't think Florida's done a good job with COVID and I'm not sure De Santis's anti-mask, anti-vaccine policies & the issues with the undercounting of COVID cases.

Frying burritos makes Mexico cry.

Holy shit that's so bad

I didn't realise the Braves were named after a tribe... I thought they just pluralised brave to be like "well our players are very brave"

Are they changing their logo too? I think they're currently named after their first ever coach. Dunno why their logo was just their helmet. That would be quite a re-brand for them though.

Remember when they tried to humanise him by showing off how he had taken up painting after meeting so many US soldiers he'd given PTSD to by sending them to war for no reason? It was bizarre.

I think it’s at 28% the last time I loaded the save, but I think that might just be items found

I have no clue tbh. Or the Indians in MLB, or the Blackhawks in NHL. Although I remember seeing something from some Native American group where they say "you can call us ________" and they had tons of words that they used to fill in the blank - and one of them was "Indian" and it ended with "but never call us r*dskins" (which tbh, I'm not sure if I should censor or not - I don't think we've got any indigenous Americans on here... but it's a racial slur that they've made clear they don't want used so I'll take out a vowel).... so that might be how Cleveland's baseball team gets away with it? Doesn't explain Kansas City getting away with it though.

And who the fuck named the Chargers? What kind of fucking name is that?

Washington should keep the name Washington Football Team as it's the most accurately descriptive name for any NFL team. Pittsburgh don't work in steel mills, Jacksonville aren't actually Jaguars, nobody on Miami is even a dolphin, I doubt any of the Minnesota players have ever participated in a raid on a monastery. Not a single player on any of the bird teams can even come close to flying - they don't even have wings FFS. I don't know what 49ing is, but I assume it's similar to 69ing - so maybe San Francisco's got an accurate team name. Meanwhile, Washington Football Team are a football team from Washington. Refreshing honesty from a side that had to change their team name because it used to be a racial slur.

When was the last time I posted some good news in this thread? Usually news from this part of the world is... well, not the greatest. Here's some good news: Iraq's arrested the mastermind behind ISIS's most deadly suicide bombing in Iraq. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58957048

I think it's weird the media's sort of tried to make him seem like a somewhat sympathetic figure because he later made statements indicating he felt a bit bad about lying to bring the US and UK into an illegal war that killed over a million Iraqis. I don't think he should get a pass because he felt bad about those actions. His whole career is tied into 40+ years of questionable US foreign policy - he's not defined by him stating the fact that he used shit intelligence (that was likely manufactured by the administration he worked for) to lie to the world in support of a war that didn't just fuck up Iraq... but sent the whole region into chaos. He should be defined by the totality of his career. It's a shame that neither he nor Rumsfeld got to face any real justice for being war criminals. None of them will and without any accountability for the Iraq War... something similar is bound to happen again in the future.

Yeah... but thats 11 years ago. Now we're seeing people in the 2021-2022 kits they've purchased from the club with Ronaldo's name and number on the back donning the green and gold scarfs at the same time - these current protests come off as churlish at best, tbh. These people don't want to feel like an exploited asset by the Glazers? Then they shouldn't be buying the new kit - capitalists like the Glazers only understand their "customers" which the fans are voting with their wallets. The cynic in me is pretty sure this one is just because the match with us is coming up and fans think they'll push it off again if they protest again. But if the match has to be called off... I think this time the rules should actually be followed this time around. Not a repeat of what happened last time, which tbh should never have happened. In any case, I think the protesting is a bit weird right now. Glazers invested heavily in United this summer and are even now investing in fixing up the stadium and modernising the infrastructure of the club - shit that they were rightfully slaughtered by fans for. This season the only reason the Glazers are an issue for Man Utd fans is that they've just given Solksjaer a contract extension. Other than that, they've actually done stuff fans are asking them for (which is more than some American owners have done tbh). Investment into the first team (pretty serious investment too - a world class CB in Varane, a right winger that was needed in Sancho, and then adding genuine world class talent in Cristiano Ronaldo). They've tried to do with United what they've done with their NFL team... the difference is their NFL team has a pretty good coach and their football team has a guy who's out of his depth. A bigger issue for United this season is Ferdinand and Neville's punditry, because each time they talk about United they seem to be taking on the role of unofficial club ambassador. And they go soft on Solksjaer, say things like Conte (probably the best manager available for United right now, tbh) isn't a good fit for United. They're using their media platforms to back their friend who's the current manager and are doing what they can to sway public opinion away from United's board making the "easy" decision of sacking a legend to appoint an available world class manager. Don't get me wrong, the Glazers are cunts and they don't belong in football. But they're definitely not even close to the worst owners in football... they're not even the worst Americans to own a club in this league... But if these protests do go off, I've got no real faith in the league actually enforcing their rules... I imagine the same thing will happen again.

Green and gold until the club is sold* *unless we're winning or we're making lots of expensive signings

Just looked into it and looks like Nintendo do free repairs on them now (at least they do here). I think the Pro Controller is one of the nicer built controllers I've ever used, but hardly any of my Switch gaming is ever done on mine now - I often am using the Switch while our TV is in use. I also use it like I used to use a GameBoy when I'm on public transit/planes. So my Joycons have received heavy use. I might have to send mine in for repairs soon - but if I do that I'll probably buy a second pair so I can still play it as a mostly handheld device while they're being repaired.