Dr. Gonzo

I can't imagine a situation where he stays on as leader after this, assuming results match the exit polls as @Batard said.

At least we don't have to worry about whether Swinson will resign

I've said Corbyn was a shite leader for Labour for years though - I didn't have to play the mental gymnastics some conservatives did once BoJo took control of the conservatives. Definitely not the first time you've likened humans to rats and probably won't be the last time though.

I think if the labour leader were literally anyone else, we'd be seeing different results imo.

Tbf that was a stupid strategy in an election where the big issue is Brexit. I've got as much contempt for the electorate as the Tories do (if not more), but I'm not rewarded for it like the Tories are. I already left the UK in search of better prospects for upward mobility - I'd suggest others do the same.

Save money so when the economy does tank you aren’t as fucked as the average Joe

Oooh interesting. Also weirdly, if you’re concerned about the IRA perhaps not fucking with the GFA would be a good idea. I don’t have much optimism for this election though. Think we’ll keep giving the keys to the tories and let them keep trying to drive their way out of the ditch they’ve driven into.

Yeah no shit the NHS buys drugs from the US - it’s why US pharma lobbyists are meeting with BoJo trying to put NHS’s negotiation power (if not more) open for negotiation. Which again, is a massive benefit to everyone in the UK that ever gets prescription drugs. Even if you’re getting your healthcare the private route. And even if we followed the Belgium route of compulsory health insurance, then the state is still responsible for anything that falls under “general coverage.”

That's pretty shite for people who don't get it subsidised by their work. The prices are insanely expensive, that's got to be a huge burden on so many people in America. Pretty fucked up tbh.

Does the IRS still add a penalty if you don't have insurance? I thought that was removed in 2016. I'm probably wrong though as I've just received my health insurance tax documents earlier today. Also I got an email from my boss stating that the company's health plan has gone up 13.55% for next year! Joy!

Because it's the US government demanding we put NHS on the table for post-Brexit trade talks? Belgium's compulsory health insurance reimburses for "general care" out of a public fund btw.

Hope so for your sake pal

I don't think it'd go well. He's been on the decline for a while and what he's achieved with the Napoli Sarri built up has been underwhelming as fuck. But he's a big name, so I can see it happening with present day Arsenal. A high profile yet poorly fitting manager, seems like something a club that's made questionable decision after questionable decision would do.

Congrats on the clean bill of health, but what about the fact the NHS negotiates drug prices for the UK - whereas in the US it's insurance companies negotiating those drug prices. And the result is... health care ends up being significantly cheaper overall in the UK (and in all countries that have public healthcare services, when compared to the US). Did you know that in the US, ambulances cost money for the person who needs an ambulance? To the point where people will turn down ambulances because they don't want to drop 5 grand. Also look at the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the United States. 2/3 of US bankruptcies are due to medical bills. It's a fucked situation where people sometimes just turn down their treatment because it's just less of a hassle to die and have money to pass on to your family than it is to get treatment. Getting rid of NHS is tacitly telling the working class: 1.) be healthy at all times, 2.) if you aren't healthy, be prepared to go broke, 3.) if you aren't prepared to go broke, prepare to die. 1 is unreasonable, 2 is also unreasonable and morally questionable, 3 is unreasonable and morally abhorrent. And if we follow the US model further, we're talking about a pretty large expense that businesses will be taking on. Benefits packages are how businesses attract good workers - getting rid of NHS means one of the most highly sought after benefits will be healthcare coverage. What that generally means in the US is your employer subsidises your health insurance. Businesses that can afford it will have to expend a significant amount of money that could go towards: hiring more workers, R&D, marketing, you know... shit that makes businesses money and drives the economy. That's why even a Koch-brothers backed US conservative think tank actually found that the Bernie Sanders' plan for something similar to NHS - https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/ It also means that part of your wages are deducted to cover the remaining portion of the insurance. Personally, I fucking hate this. I'm paid pretty well and I hate seeing my money go twice a week to something that I'm most likely not going to be using more than once a year (yearly checkup)… unless something bad happens to me - which so far has happened twice with a drink driver hitting me while I was on a motorcycle and when I severed my tendon. And I'm thankful I had health insurance because of those two incidents otherwise I'd probably be in any condition to even be sat here at my desk typing on a keyboard... but I think I'd have been more thankful if the US a public option which meant an overall cheaper experience through those medical nightmares & higher wages for me twice a month (because if you read what that Koch think tank found, it found greater savings for businesses, indicating workers would have higher wages on average). We get rid of NHS and we're going to have the same problems the US has with it's healthcare industry. But in a country where overall the wages are lower and the cost of living is higher - and these issues are probably why people, regardless of partisan affiliation are feeling fed up with the overall system. Because at the end of the day, the primary benefit the NHS confers on all UK citizens (regardless of whether if they use private health or not) is the significantly lower drug prices than you'd find in the US. And you'd be asking British businesses to either clog up resources (which isn't very "business friendly Conservative" of you) or to not give a toss about the health of their workers (which is advocating for shite business sense). The most compelling argument for the UK being rid of the NHS is that you've got shares in American pharmaceutical giants and you want to make a killing, in that regard. Otherwise, it just seems to be a way to make more problems in the UK and it'll negatively impact those that are already feeling most left behind and betrayed by the government.

This was just pulled from Walmart Canada - hilarious jumper though, I'd buy one

Tories: CoRbYn Is An AnTi-SeMiTe Recent Tory PMs: BoJo writes a book in 2004 depicting Jews as controlling the media and interfering in elections: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_source=reddit.com#Echobox=1575907767 May unveils statue of noted anti-semetic MP that loved Nazis

Kuenssberg should have resigned when she was caught doctering that Corbyn interview question about whether he'd order police to use lethal force (he said generally, he wouldn't - she then used this to say "Corbyn wouldn't allow for lethal force in the wake of a Paris-style attack), which I'd argue was worse than her just lying. That was found to be in violation of the BBC's impartiality guidelines. Yet she's still got her job. Still spreading lies.

You can see with England and United that he's a defensive leader though - even if he didn't necessarily show it for you. Evans is probably better at it than him, so he just sort of followed his lead. And with Morgan maybe he thought telling the captain what to do wasn't his place. Either way, he's obviously improved United's defending this season. He's just not worth the money that was spent - but I think that was something most people knew when he made the move over. England international tax and all that jazz.

I actually don't think Maguire's been bad at United and I still think he's a good player - but losing Maguire has allowed Leicester to play with a higher line because Evans and Sonyoncu isn't anywhere near as slow as a pairing as Evans and Maguire. With Ndidi to help out the defenders, they can keep a high line and they have 2 very good fullbacks to stretch the opposition - which really suits how Rodgers likes to operate. Also you have to consider that Maguire was playing behind a much better midfield at Leicester than he was at United (weird to type that one out and be totally serious about it - but it's true). So even though Maguire not being pacey isn't so much of an issue at United, where they defend deeper than Leicester do this season, he's under more pressure defensively because that midfield is putting the United defense under more pressure. I think he was overpriced, he's not worth a fee as high as his, but I understand why they signed him - he's a player that gives them leadership (ironically, Leicester still have a leader at the back in United's youth product Evans) and he'll be with them during his peak years. The defending for United last season was pretty dogshit, this season it's been noticeably better. My post about him holding Leicester's defense back was more in jest than serious - I think ultimately Leicester's defensive success comes down to Evans and Sonyoncu being a better partnership for the system that Rodgers likes to use, more than the quality of Maguire. It was an excellent bit of business for Leicester, getting as much money as they did while they had a replacement ready to go.

Maguire was holding Leicester's defense back:

Awww yeeeahh lets have Chelsea make some panic buys and stop giving the kids a chance

Holy shit they're putting Duncan Ferguson in charge literally minutes after I made that post questioning what the fuck he does at Everton! A member of the Everton board lurks among us!

I don't know if traditional media should die off - the media's double standards in reporting in politics over the last few decades is obviously extremely troubling because it's been massively influential in the shitshow we're in today. But at the same time, a lot of "independent" political journalism isn't rooted in the ideas of journalistic integrity in trying to give people political news - a lot of it is people independent of the mainstream media trying to mislead the public even further and designed to push people to more extreme viewpoints. I do think the internet and social media play a massive part in how the political culture of the western world is being molded. I think what the internet has done is pretty similar to what happened when the printing press was developed: the printing press made it easier than ever for people to spread and receive information. When we think of the renaissance we typically think of the massive strides forward Europe made in artistic and scientific pursuits - we often don't think about how it was a time of notable social struggle and political upheaval. Now we're not coming out of the plague, like the people alive at the time of the renaissance. But we are in a time where a great deal of people feel utterly left behind by the situation their governments have left them in. So people aren't anywhere near as desperate as the dark ages (which is a good thing), but they're still feeling desperate. We're also in a time where we've got information flowing more freely than ever before. Just like with the printing press, that's mostly a good thing for society. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have it's own issues that can be magnified by simple human nature. I think people have always had issues with critical thinking and being able to discern reality from bullshit - otherwise conmen wouldn't be a thing and politicians would be held more accountable for their brazen lying. So while I think people nowadays are generally aware of more factually accurate things than people at the beginning of the renaissance (as they fucking should, considering centuries have passed)… imo people are just as stupid as they've ever been. Just like how people have used exploiting "fear of the other" isn't new. IMO calling for killing off our press is a bit extreme, but I don't know how you'd really regulate the media properly without it stifling the concept of a free press. Any government oversight of privately owned media inherently makes that media less a part of a "free press" - but perhaps rules regarding how many media entites one person/one corporate group can hold would be a start? It's a tricky issue, but it's something that needs to be addressed. Similarly, social media providers have demonstrated they're not to be trusted at "self-regulation" and the effectiveness of the internet at being a tool for the spread of malicious bullshit for political purposes is also something that needs to be addressed. But again, it's tricky to do that while maintaining all of the positive benefits the free flow of ideas and information on the internet provide. That's not to shit on all independent journalism out there either - there are people out there trying to raise journalistic standards considering how badly traditional media has let those standards drop. But there's also plenty of people out there calling themselves "journalists" taking from news stories actual journalists wrote and then throwing heavy doses of their own opinion in it trying to mislead. And even worse are the people who make shit up. I just think traditional media and this new era of online media have their own issues that are all very complicated... and I'm fairly sure the extreme view that traditional media must die, if it ever did come to fruition, would be one of those cases of the grass not always being greener on the other side.

How has Duncan Ferguson survived so many managerial changes? Is he actually a good football coach? I feel like not since Lukaku have Everton strikers really looked like... decent strikers... so he can't be great as a strikers coach, if that's what he's up to? Then again, I know fuck all about the coaching dynamics at Everton, so there's a good chance he's a good coach that has survived so many managers based on extreme competence. I just have no idea what he does really... but he has survived a lot of managerial changes and it does beg the question... why? If it's sentimentality over his competence, Everton need to do the tough thing and tell a legend it's time to go. If he's genuinely good at his job, fair enough. If it's because nobody's got the bollocks to sack him then lol

Imo part of the problem is the tactics. United seem to be at their best against the sides that are more open and come at them with possession, then being absolutely ruthless on the counter. But up against sides that on most days would just be content with winning a point at United that come and are going to sit back deep and force United to come at them... when typically that’s what all of us watching English football would expect United to thrive. Tbh I don’t know if this is a problem with just Solksjaer, or an overall lack of creativity at United right now - this problem existed under Mourinho too. Or if it’s a mentality issue, because his start was pretty fucking impressive. However you slice it, it’s certainly a strange and interesting issue. Because you certainly can’t say a side is all that bad when they perform in big matches. But it’s a weird consistency issue.