Dr. Gonzo

If I were running Man Utd, likely properly running it and not just being a Liverpool fan and running them into the ground just for the lolz, I'd be much more keen on getting rid of ETH and the players he's brought in, then I would be getting rid of Rashford or the players that were there before ETH and now seem to take serious issue with him. Solskjaer was a better manager for United than Ten Hag - I stand by that statement. And if Solskjaer wasn't good enough for United (which he's not), then I don't think ETH's tenure is indicative of someone who should be staying at a football club or being given free reign to spend tons of money on players that don't actually help United at all. How many players have fallen out with ETH now? How much money has he spent on players that simply do not improve United in the slightest? Idk if United have a director of football or not, but they do need to address a lot of things above the manager as well. Do they have a Director of Football? I genuinely don't know - but if they do, sack him and replace him with someone that's got a track record at a club that's got high expectations in the league they're from but also has a track record of making signings that indicate a good eye for signing good talent at a great price. Then, I think they need to sack off all the scouts. Man Utd's scouting in recent seasons has been a bit bizarre tbh. A lot of "obvious" signings - "we need a CB and Madrid want to sell Varane," "we need a DM and Madrid want to sell Casemiro"; these aren't bad signings, in fact Casemiro was a big hit last year. But the issue is value - Varane cost a lot for a defender with his injury record. Casemiro cost a lot for a DM that moved to a more physical league at his age - and now he looks like he's already losing his legs. Signing Sancho without really having a plan to integrate him now looks like a waste of time for pretty much everybody except Dortmund. Signing Ronaldo because they didn't want their former legend joining Man City, even though it fucked up Solskjaer's plans for that season was just stupid... and undermined the manager and his plans for the season. Sometimes the obvious signings are just what is needed - they're high quality and high profile players for a reason. But they're expensive. And to me it seems like United have done a lot of signing for the sake of making signings. I just feel like there's not enough voices behind the scenes at Man Utd that are thinking about things like getting good value for incoming signings. And there's so little cohesion between making a signing and being sure the manager can integrate them. So I think once they address the DOF/recruitment issue... then that's a good time to axe ETH and bring in a manager with a long term vision for the club worth investing in. And after a new manager's had a few months with the squad, I'd then revisit whether players like Rashford need to be sent away because their attitudes are too toxic. But I don't think ETH is worse United's time or money any more and if they rid themselves of him... I think they'll likely find themselves with a much better manager. Having said that, I'm fine with United keeping him for a very long time. I could be very wrong, and stranger things have happened than me being very wrong about something in football, but I just think he's a very overrated manager.

Has anyone told Talha Ahmad that Israel, and the Middle East generally, is actually in the northern hemisphere?

He’s still a massive shareholder so he’ll still be manipulating stock value to suit him when he can - I think despite no longer being a director he’s going to remain very influential over the company. Not gonna lie though this is the most interested I’ve been in WWE since I was a kid. The shocking allegations, the ridiculous - and I mean RIDICULOUS - text messages, the moment where I said “did you just say he shat on her head?!” Wild drama.

@Michael re: Qatar - https://www.iranintl.com/en/202211254809

Why does she have to apologise for accurately describing various Tories?

The shitting on a woman's head during a threesome

He doesn't stress me out. I just want to understand why he's got so many beliefs that are either contradictory, why he pushes false narratives (which are easily disproven) that are tied to fucked up ideologies that when he's asked to defend... he says things that are pretty far removed from the ideology he was pushing. Someone can only say so many things to me that don't make sense before I have the thirst to know what the hell is making them say so much insane shit that doesn't even make sense. Using terms regarding ideology and then not even seeming to have a grasp of the basics of the ideology is... bizarre. Saying things like the US has a strong economy, while it's economic backbone is somehow not a strong economy... that's just a statement that can't be made sense of. And I know it's because of repeating certain narratives that he's heard before elsewhere from people pushing bullshit. But we live in a world where you can go online and read about the things you're talking about and verify pretty easily that the people pushing these weird narratives are lying. And the die hard believers of these weird narratives and ideologies fall in too far into hole and start unwittingly supporting things that they probably wouldn't have supported before they've fallen into the holes. I basically want to know where these strong convictions that can be easily refuted by simply reading the definition of things like "libertarianism" "capitalism" and "social democracy", etc. Because when the things being said just don't make sense and someone seems to be pushing a narrative/ideology that can lead to a dangerous slippery slope, it's likely you've got a person confused by people on the internet trying to confuse people into supporting horrible things. People shouldn't have strong convictions of things that are actually against what they actually believe politically just because some joker on reddit, youtube, twitter, etc are trying to feed people to have strong convictions about politics and policies they don't really understand.

California is also the home of some of the US's biggest and wealthiest corporation with a solid tech industry, biotech industry, chemical engineering industry, financial industry, agricultural industry, name a sector - California's got it and is doing it better than most of the US. It's the state with some of the highest paid highest skilled workers in the country and attracts international workers as a result of that. As discussed previously, that "insane taxation" is a lower effective tax rate than in the only red state that can come close to competing with it, Texas. As far as American economic success goes, California is the most economically successful in pretty much every metric. That's simply not debatable. The socioeconomic disparity and corruption are not unique to California. They might be more apparently because there's a lot more people in California. That's a national problem. Okay let's dissect this, using American politics as the reference point since this is the American politics thread. 1.) In the US, unemployment benefits aren't provided federally. They are provided by each state. I don't know how it works in other states, but in California you only qualify for unemployment if: a.) you have been sacked - resignations do not qualify for unemployment. If you've never had a job, you don't qualify for unemployment; b.) when you demonstrate proof of actively searching for jobs - seeking unemployment while not actively looking for work leads to people being popped for unemployment fraud. This means paying back the money they received from the state, as well as at least a few months in prison, c.) you can only collect unemployment for 26 weeks. So by US standards, or at least Californian standards, you only get unemployment under certain conditions including actively looking for work... and for much less time than you'd get benefits than you'd get in South Africa. So in practice, what happens in California (which is part of the US) is actually nothing that "encourages people to do nothing about their situation" - and in fact mandates that they do in fact do something about their situation in order to receive these benefits. If you've been sacked and receive a severance, you likely will be rejected on your application to receive benefits - or will later have been found to have lied in your application and get popped for unemployment fraud. 2.) Sounds like South Africa has more employment regulation than the US. California is an "at will employment" state - this means employees can be fired for basically any reason. There are certain limitations to this, that have been carved out through employment law cases - but that's the general rule of "at will employment" or "right to work" states. Keep in mind, as well, this is California. The so-called "communist republic of California," that the right wing portrays as a communist hellscape. Yet in terms of employee rights, this state falls short of left-wing protections for workers by some way and is in fact more right wing and capitalistic than many countries including South Africa. So it seems to me, your actual view on US fair labour practices would be that the US should actually moving less to the right and more to the left in that regard. And if I have you right, then I think that means you are rejecting some core beliefs of purely libertarian/capitalist doctrine. 3.) Only in rare circumstances in the US are increases and bonuses guaranteed.

America's got an ineffective government because of the shitty way it was all structured and designed for gridlock. It's not a failed or failing government. There's issues with the elite being able to get away with crimes, but that seems to be a problem everywhere in the world. It's funny you site that the economy is far from a failure, yet you've criticised California for being an abject failure of a state... yet California is the economic powerhouse of the US & I know from experience it is a great place to live. But whether you view the economy as far from failure really depends on perspective. While wages in the US are relatively great compared to doing the same work in other countries, since the 80s there's been an increasing gap in how wealth has been distributed in the US. Wage growth has stagnated for the many, while for the elite few there's been record profits and income. When the many are left behind for a handful of ultra-wealthy elite, it's easy for many to think "this is a broken system." When people look back to the US golden era post WW2, where Americans felt economic opportunity was limitless, there was a massive tax on the American ultra-wealthy and corporations. Did they stop making money? No they made shitloads of money. And Americans, on average, seemed more than content with their economic system. In the 70s, many economists started talking about the "death of the American dream" - but the disparity between the rich and the regular in the US has just gone insane since the 80s.

In the US the current system certainly isn't no regulation though? There's federal agencies that have oversight on big business because of the things big business has done. You don't get labour safety regulations without companies first operating without those regulations and injuring, maiming, and killing a few employees. You don't get banking regulations without banks creating crises. The current system of the US is a capitalist representative democracy that has too few restrictions on lobbying. Previous restrictions were wiped out by a conservative Supreme Court ruling in the case Citizens United, which was written by US conservative hero Antonin Scalia. And just because America is capitalistic, that doesn't mean it doesn't have some semblance of socialism. There are social programs. Democratic socialism is pretty far from a capitalist democracy. Which isn't to say that capitalism can't exist in democratic socialist societies - the closest countries the west has to democratic socialist countries have a blend of both capitalism and socialism in a way that goes far beyond the social programs provided by the United States. The difference between say Sweden and the US is how much socialism and capitalism is blended into their economic systems. You see, the extreme scenarios are not the only choices people have in their governance. And extreme political solutions are often bad solutions.

A failing government is the system though, so you're on the same page as @Spike it sounds like?

Libertarian policies are all the less likely to solve that corruption. Libertarian policies push for as little regulation of the free market as possible, with the goal of increasing business through profitability. History has shown time and time again, following libertarian policies leads to wealth hoarded by those at the top while the little guy ends up more exploited than ever and has. But it looks like you're abandoning your claim to being a libertarian and are now calling yourself a democratic socialist/capitalist. Democratic socialism and capitalism are not the same thing, though. It depends on who you ask with regards to democratic socialism and how capitalistic a society should be, but a core concept of democratic socialism is the belief that capitalism, at least with minimal regulation, is incompatible with the notion of freedom, liberty, and equality. The "socialist" part of democratic socialism is believing there should be a somewhat socially owned economy - which is direct state involvement in the economy. The democratic part is believing that the way government should be structured should be a democracy. I just don't think you've really got an idea of what you're advocating for anymore. But a lot of what you've pushed is pretty far from the ideals of democratic socialism. And a lot of what you've said since advocating for libertarian policies... simply just aren't libertarian policies. It's all very confusing and I don't know what to make of it.

Well yeah, but should they care about that? I wouldn't

He didn't though. Under Trump only one meaningful piece of legislation could be passed - despite him having the senate and house for a portion of his presidency. And it was his lower taxes for the wealthy, while raising taxes on the working and middle class - particularly those in states that voted against him (the economic powerhouses of the US, I might ad) with the SALT (state and local tax) deduction cap lowered significantly. Even though those states have MORE REPUBLICAN VOTERS than many of the red states that went for him. So aside from being nearly totally unable to work with a friendly legislature for a part of his presidency, other than on something all conservatives agree on: rich people should pay less in taxes than the working and middle class, who should shoulder most of the burden. He didn't really do much. And those kinds of policies, by the way, fly in the face of the notion that he did anything positive for the "every day working man" or their interests as you claimed earlier in this thread. It was just another handout to the elite. Everything else he did in government was through Executive Order, something he (and his party) bashed Obama for continually while running for election and appointing judges that lied during their confirmation hearings to further a far right agenda. And he didn't even pick those judges, he got them off a list given to him by the Federalist Society - so it was a far right lobbying group doing his presidenting for him when it came to judicial appointments. Another handout to the elite. And many of his executive orders were totally meaningless, others were wiped away after legal challenges because he and his advisors struggled with basic legal concepts.

The alternative to libertarianism is not limited to solely socialistic dystopia like Venezuela.

I don't think they're helping Everton's case - but I also don't think the appeals will be giving what fans think any consideration, so I also don't think they're hurting Everton's case. From an Evertonian fan perspective, directing the toxicity that had built up over recent seasons in the fanbase towards the league seems to have really helped Dyche build a siege mentality in his side. With that in mind, I don't think the fans are doing anything wrong by directing the justifiable anger they should have towards both their owners and the league into something that is directed less at the club and more at the league. I think mentally it has done something for the players and at the top level any sort of mental advantage you can get, imo, makes a pretty huge difference to how a season can go. And I think the points deduction was very harsh tbh - it's harsher than Portsmouth's deduction for going into administration. And for as bad as things are financially at Everton, they're not quite as bad as what happened at Portsmouth. And despite all clubs agreeing to rule changes, I think it was entirely reasonable for Everton to think the ongoing investigation would continue using the same rules it was using when the investigation started - especially as they were working with the league to try to get into full compliance. In that sense, I can agree with the "made up rules" statement.

Also:

Lol he said this while advocating after advocating for Trump. Does he know how Trump got his money? Corruption? I'm sure he's thinking some Hunter Biden shit, but what on earth was forcing the Secret Service to stay at Trump hotels and resorts if anything but corruption? If diplomats were encouraged to stay at the Trump hotel in DC - is that not corruption?

Al Qaeda’s one of their proxy forces that had been fighting directly under Saudi leadership in their coalition for their involvement in Yemen, mate. There’s no question about Saudi control and involvement with Al Qaeda. Many of those groups in Syria they funded immediately took that funding and were absorbed by ISIS. And they’re all extremists that follow Wahhabism and Salafism that is spread directly through funding from Saudi Arabia. The absence of direct ties is just plausible deniability for the House of Saud. In my experience most Arabs I’ve met don’t approve of their own governments or the Saudi government. But that’s often why they’ve lived in other Arab countries, rather than where they’re from, or simply left the Middle East. It’s not a great region for expressing thoughts about people having a say in what goes on in the governance of these countries. You’re not going to hear open criticism of governments in most of these countries… As for Qatar’s treatment of Iranian fans - I’m not surprised you saw different treatment for Syrians than Iranians. As stated earlier, Qatar and Iran have very close ties and their governments have worked closely in recent times, especially when Qatari-Saudi relations got sour. These weren’t normal arrests in the World Cup, these people were handed to the IRI government handlers of Team Melli. The same people who threatened the families of players after the players refused to sing the national anthem when that was requested by Iranian protestors.

Advanced jets, tanks, and missile systems all require time to train troops how to use them properly. I think that’s one of the reasons why Poland supplying MIG fighters Ukrainian pilots could already fly was a very big deal - it was stuff that could be used from the moment it arrived in Ukraine. The wars I can think of in modern history most similar to this are: 1) Iran v Iraq in the 80s, where Iraq enjoyed widespread international support (including German chemical weapons the west turned a blind eye for using) - Iran successfully defended Iraq from seizing Khuzestan in large part from the terrain being easy to defend. 2) the first Azerbaijan - Armenia conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh; pretty evenly matched in terms of equipment, weaponry, manpower - but the defensible territory for the Armenians in Artsakh let them successfully claim a breakaway state within Azerbaijan’s borders 3) the second Azerbaijan - Armenia conflict that just happened recently; where Armenia’s largely using the same stuff as they did in the 90s with a much smaller military, and Azerbaijan had advanced Turkish and Israeli drones and significantly more troops. There, the technology advantage and the manpower advantage overcame the defensible terrain advantage. Even in conflicts with less similarity to Ukraine v. Russia - Afghanistan for the US and Vietnam for the US, it ultimately didn’t matter that US military might was impossible to beat in traditional combat. The terrain of both countries meant the Taliban & Vietcong could survive and wait out US will to keep fighting. It seems to me the most defensible terrain in Ukraine is Crimea - and it’s more easily defended if attacked from the Ukrainian side. Ukraine seems to already have the tech advantage compared to Russia due to western aid. But Russia will always have more manpower to spare to throw troops into combat than Ukraine. I’m just not 100% convinced more advanced weaponry, that will take time to be fully combat effective for Ukraine and can’t be used immediately can effectively break the stalemate. I could be wrong, I’m not a general I’m just someone that likes history and following current events. And I hope I am wrong. I will always stand with a fledging democracy trying to defend itself from an unjustified attack coming from a dictatorship neighbor. But I fear nothing will break the stalemate other than direct NATO involvement… and that likely means World War 3, which I’m really not to keen on having happen during our lifetimes. I also fear the results of the US election will lead to another Trump presidency. His idea of peace is Ukraine’s total capitulation, so it’s not ideal for Ukraine. Or anyone hoping for democracy to triumph over dictatorships.

Mate it’s not unheard of for countries in a region to have influence in that region. The Saudi government has loads of influence in the Middle East and often pretends to speak for all Arab countries & simultaneously funds Arab proxies (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc). And what Qatar did wasn’t arresting protestors in the streets, they were arresting fans at the stadiums of Iran matches for things like: displaying Iran’s old flag or banners that say Women, Life, Freedom. And the Kish islands are Iranian & the UAE was trying to take them from Iran…

But that's not a very libertarian view at all. Freedom of the individual & a person's body being their own property are core components to the ideology. As such, it's an incredibly popular view amongst libertarians that prostitution (which is sex work) should be legal. They view prostitution the same as any other contract or agreement. One person agrees to pay money and in return they receive sex acts performed on them. Furthermore, a key component of being a libertarian is believing that a truly free market destroys illegal and dangerous black markets. The reasoning for this is: a black market exists to accommodate what a legal market lacks. Is this just an instance of you promoting an ideology that don't really fully understand? Or is this just your own personal take on what being a libertarian means - despite it not meeting core concepts that would actually make your beliefs libertarian beliefs?

Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas on the Fallout 4/Fallout 76 engine would be fantastic

Andrew Tate's view of women is essentially treat them like children (at best) and as slaves at worst. He takes vulnerable men and tries to fill them with his weirdo ideology so they can prey on vulnerable young women so their worldview can be shaped into lives of submission serving these "high value men." I fully believe he'd be advocating for men to seek partners as young as possible if not for it being very illegal. Because like you say, the whole ideology is finding young and vulnerable women to exploit and groom into being "a woman that is with a high value man." His idea of what a high value man is weird too. A man who can't cook a meal or clean up their own house is pretty far from a high value man. An adult who can't do either of those things is barely functional imo.

And I think with Putin, it's been shown if there's no willpower from the west to push back - he will keep expanding into Europe. When he sent troops into Georgia, he didn't get much pushback from the west. When he first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and seized Crimea, he got away with it with minimal pushback from the west at all. When he was massing troops on the border of Ukraine before this more recent invasion, while the US and UK were saying "we can see what you're doing on satellite images" he would go before the world and say "there's no chance of us invading, I have no idea what these countries are talking about" and that was DAYS before he sent Russians in to invade. If he thinks the West's appetite to help Ukraine defend itself has finally been quelled, he's going to keep trying to expand. What does peace between Russia and Ukraine look like if not for the west? Total capitulation of Zelensky's government and being replaced by a puppet? Will Ukraine no longer be a sovereign nation? Will Putin try expansionist claims into NATO member countries? I would have thought that World War 2 would have been a good lesson on why expansionist dictators should not be appeased - but here we are, considering whether or not Putin will be allowed to use aggression to further his expansionist aims. But as to your first question, do I think enough of the right weaponry for Ukrainian troops is enough? I'm really not sure. I think it could cause an endless stalemate that leads to decades of war - but Ukraine doesn't have the same defensible terrain as other countries to where I think it could definitively turn the tide against an invader with much more manpower. Simply put, I'm not sure Ukraine has the manpower to win a war of attrition against Russia even if armed with loads and loads of the best weaponry available to it in the world. It would be different, imo, if Russia had more outspoken dissent against Putin's rule and the war - but Putin enjoys large support in Russia and dissidents in Russia seem to genuinely fear him more than dissidents of other authoritarian nations that don't enjoy western support.