Dr. Gonzo

The thing is America really doesn't need to look for another war with Ukraine. They get to have high military spending like they're at war, replenishing their stock of what's sold to Ukraine as well as just selling arms directly from the manufacturer to Ukraine. So to your last point, I think especially after the Afghanistan disaster... appetite for the US to be involved in yet another middle eastern war (although everyone seems to forget the US military's still been active in Syria and Yemen) is pretty low. I don't think a war with China will ever happen as China's strength is that the US (and West) relies on it economically, but by the same token China relies on the west economically. I think Russia's given them a first hand glimpse at how quickly things can turn if they tried to "retake" Taiwan. And now China's got 2 international trade partners that are wholly reliant on them in Russia and Iran. So America has all the "benefit" of war in its military industry complex... all while not actually being at war. That's probably ideal to most US politicians, which is why even republicans other than the MAGA bunch seem to be completely fine with the US supporting Ukraine. So ultimately, if this escalates... it's all going to be down to what Putin does next. Remember, he was not forced to invade Ukraine - he made a calculated decision to invade and annex Crimea, he made a further calculated decision to go ahead an invade the rest of Ukraine. The US has been talking about responding to Russia's threat of nuclear weapons as early as June 2022, though considering statements made by the head of the CIA William Burns. A US general's even said if Russia does use nuclear weapons the US might not even respond with their own nuclear arsenal. And keep in mind, the US isn't storing nukes in Ukraine (like Russia is in Belarus). Some have suggested NATO wouldn't even respond unless radiation blows over into a NATO country (which it probably would) and that it's more likely that it opens up every Russian military asset as a target of conventional weapons (which NATO really has no shortage of, thanks to the US). Pretty sure Blinken's talking about Ukraine's cluster bomb ammunition too - because again, Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster bombs the whole time. Russia, as you'd expect, has more than Ukraine did. Interestingly enough, googling "US discussing tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine" just brings back hits of US officials speaking abut the possibility of Putin ordering tactical nukes to be used in Ukraine. What the US does next is all dependent on Putin's Russia, the ball is in his court.

California doesn't have gerrymandering though? The wealth gap is probably the biggest issue facing America right now and I don't think any party has any real answers to it, probably because they're all beholden to their corporate donors who are very much for pushing more and more wealth to themselves than to everyone else. I don't think being able to speak is really a criteria required for being president, judging by the Trump and Biden. And if the election is between those two, I think for most voters it's going to come down to "which of these two people do I hate the least." It's a shame though because no country deserves to be led by a narcistic dickhead or a senile fool. I don't think RFK has a hope in hell. He's more popular with opponents of his party than he is within his own party. If he tries to primary Biden, he's going to get crushed by the democratic base. In any case, America wanted a moderate who would follow status quo American politics to guide them through the post-covid period. That's exactly what Biden is. I think GWB still holds the title for worst ever president though, but Carter and Trump aren't far behind.

@Carnivore Chris @JoshBRFC how was Tyler Morton on loan with Blackburn last season? I suspect with Henderson & Fabinho off FSG probably won't sign 2 midfielders to fill the void they'll leave behind, so I imagine he's got a pathway to first team football with us now. Think he'll be able to make the step up as a squad player for us or will he look lost at this level? I think he's played a couple of times for us and didn't look bad when I saw him.

Tim Scott is and he's an absolute clown show Biden's better than anyone the GOP's put forward at the minute, except maybe Vivek Ramaswamy and I'm just saying that because I don't know anything about him. Got low low low hopes for a tech bro with political aspirations though. Or Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgam, who have got no hope because they're actually moderates and that will never fly with the GOP base. Trump's an unhinged criminal (basically did what he accused Clinton of, but more brazenly and with paper documents; if he wasn't rich & powerful he'd be in prison) DeSantis has the same issue as Elon Musk, more popular until people heard what he has to say and now his popularity is tanking Mike Pence religious zealot that's hated by: 1.) the Trump base, 2.) democrats Chris Christie is a hinged criminal (Bridgegate) Nikki Haley's got the same issue Pence or anyone tied to the Trump administration who's tried to pivot back towards acting like a normal person. Alienated the Trump base but also not forgiven or forgotten by those who despise Trump Tim Scott is a clown Moderates tend to like Biden a hell of a lot more than Trump & people that were in Trump's administration. Chris Christie's maybe got the next best appeal to moderates but he's generally hated by most republicans and democrats and is so unpopular in his home state he's probably unlikely to win it. DeSantis is only popular with people that only care about the culture wars and nothing else. I don't think Tim Scott's really popular with anyone other than the people who elected him to the senate. I think Biden & Trump would be a close election, because it's two low tier presidents that are a known quantity to the electorate and aren't really going to excite anyone hopeful for change. The biggest turnout will be from people that hate one candidate less than the other - I suspect a lot of moderates wouldn't turn out to vote unless they really hated one in particular. At this point the GOP's best hope is that Fox can somehow wrestle back control over the GOP base and start pushing moderates instead of the far-right weirdos they've cultivated for decades and then lost control of. That's how they can appeal more to moderates and younger generations.

There's a shitload of people in the senate and congress who are miles worse than Biden, tbh.

Cluster munitions should probably be considered a war crime universally - but they're not because international law is arbitrary and weird. Having said that, the US, Ukraine, and Russia all don't consider cluster munitions illegal. Ukraine and Russia have both been using them the entirety of the war (Russia's even used them on civilian targets). It's morally reprehensible, but war is generally morally reprehensible. But is it so controversial that 3 nations that don't consider these morally reprehensible weapons illegal, are involved in warfare & transferring of said morally reprehensible weapons? And I'm pretty sure Russia's been talking about nuclear weapons and destroying nuclear plants for longer than anyone in the west has talked about using tactical weapons - it's all saber rattling anyways unless the US is gambling with everyone's lives that Russian nukes aren't functional. And that would be insane, so I doubt that anyone's thinking that.

DeSantis is awful. A culture warrior that comes off as a human being in the same way Mark Zuckerberg and Ted Cruz do.

I think even at 38 Young's an upgrade on Mykolenko tbh.

In the last year, the actions of a lot of online Palestinians did a lot of work erasing my sympathies for Palestine with their simping for the IRI. But it's hard to lose that sympathy completely when there's people out there spouting this kind of racist shit: Israel has the position of power, if they want meaningful peace they've got to take the first steps in backing away from the pattern of escalation that always happens with Israel & Palestine. And they need to ignore radicals like these settlers and this political commentator who has nothing to add to any discussion other than pouring petrol onto existing fires.

Pretty sure Russia's military outnumbers Ukraine's without even accounting for the PMCs

I think Levy's weighing Spurs fans emotions against what seems to be the right financial move. Spurs haven't been performing well since they made the CL final. They just had their ticket prices spike up pretty significantly. Would selling Kane for under £100m be a bridge too far for Spurs fans? Kane's their best hope at qualifying for the CL or winning anything in the next season probably. I think on paper the decision to make would be sell Kane for as much as they can get for him this summer and rather than try to replace him try to bring in 2-3 high quality players that overall improve Spurs despite losing one of the best attackers in Europe. Because they're just not going to be able to sign a like for like replacement - good strikers are always in high demand and getting a player to replace Kane's output is going to be basically impossible if you're just looking at players around Europe and expecting them to slot right in. But I think given the pressure Levy's been under, I don't think they can just cut their talisman loose for under £100m without being under more pressure and risking a pretty toxic home atmosphere as Spurs try to rebuild under a new manager facing the biggest test of his short career. Promising one more year of Kane shows a semblance of ambition for a side that have seen their side look like they're ready to compete for top honours with attractive football to looking mediocre under negative football. It probably gets more fans willing to keep turning up despite the 20% increase, they've got a manager known for playing entertaining football and still have their star man for one more year. Perhaps more important than the financial side of the Kane decision is giving the new manager a more smooth transition to a Spurs in need of a serious rebuild to get back to where they hoped they were heading a few seasons ago. And keeping the fans as happy as possible despite the bad situation Spurs are in is also important.

Oh no, you might almost not win the league but still dramatically win it on the final day!!

There was no secret this didn't pass any regulatory standards. The window on the front of the sub was only pressure rated for a third of the depth the Titan was going (and where it had gone before). NASA and Boeing assisted with the creation of the hull but refused to sign off on it being safe because there were serious questions. Canada have said they are looking into possible legal action, but so far in their investigation it appears that they haven't broken any laws. The guy knew he was skirting safety regulations, he deliberately maneuvered into legal grey areas. Again, it is not a secret about any of this. He did it very openly. Like both of us have said - the legal ramifications for OceanGate are likely to come from the families of the victims making a claim that the waivers aren't valid and that OceanGate was grossly negligent, and blatantly so (as is well documented). Wrongful death verdicts would give some chance of seeing some culpability for the families of the victims. A verdict in favor of one of the two billionaire families with victims onboard is likely to force OceanGate completely out of business - and... it honestly already is with how much bad press they've received and their CEO imploding in the middle of the Atlantic. An attorney using social media to make content other than advertising content (and even that can be questionable)... is probably not a great attorney. And again, what they were doing was really well documented. They are famous for not getting proper certifications shrugging their shoulders and carrying on with what they were doing. They used the previous successful missions to point at the safety regulations and laugh.

Tottenham raising ticket prices 20% Absolutely mental, they’ve already got some of the most expensive tickets in the country. Pretty ridiculous to do this when 1) there’s a cost of living crisis, 2) the side has struggled on the pitch for years.

Culpability should be pretty easy to find, I imagine their liability waivers aren’t legitimate considering there’s plenty of evidence OceanGate was negligent. Seems like a civil matter, so survivors of the victims should sue OceanGate. But the main guy responsible escaped liability by dying. And tbh I think everyone who died is pretty culpable for their own deaths for trusting a guy who said “safety just slows down innovation” and his makeshift vessel.

Here’s what Canada’s said so far: “Such an investigation will proceed only if our examination of circumstances indicate criminal federal or provincial laws may possibly have been broken. There’s no suspicion of criminal activity per se, but the RCMP is taking initial steps to assess whether or not we will go down that road,” Osmond continued. & “Our mandate is to find out what happened and why and to find out what needs to change to reduce the chance or the risk of such occurrences in the future,” she said. https://jalopnik.com/canada-looking-into-possible-criminal-charges-over-tita-1850576785 These YouTube “experts” get their info from looking around at shit on the internet by the way, so you can cut out the middle man and read stuff instead of having some rando give you their spin

lol mate - seriously read some of those links that were posted though. But it wasn't registered in the US & it had no maritime industry classification. Your boat or your friend's catamaran passenger vehicle are different to a submersible that will never sail in and out of ports. Most regulations regarding submersibles are based on local rules. This was a submersible carried out to international waters from a Canadian vessel. They weren't in any violation of any regulation, they were just in a weird grey area. The links above that @nudge posted explain it better than I can, so to satisfy your curiosity and get some answers to your questions I think you should check them out.

I don't think that's so terrible tbh. We live in a world where Dortmund paid £25m for a 17 year old and it was absolutely worth it for them because he was quality and ended up looking world class and then they sold him for 4 times that roughly. And that was just the initial fee according to Birmingham dependent on performance related criteria... that I'm sure he met some of. If sides get it right when they pay for promising young talent, it really can go right. James Trafford's a 20 year old keeper who looks really good for his age and has 60-ish league appearances at age 20. He looks like with the right coaching you've possibly got a top keeper and keepers can play til pretty late in their careers. Shea Charles I don't know anything about other than he's got more appearances for Northern Ireland than he's got for club football, so that's a bit weird. But I don't blame clubs taking advantage of the fact their youth team's got a good reputation. And in fairness to City, what they've done with their academy is one of the more commendable things they've done with their oil money. I don't think it's even necessarily an English clubs having money thing that have made the rising price of young players in the last few decades a thing. Tbh, I sort of think James Trafford's likely to be a sort of English Donnarumma - really talented for his age, pretty likely that he's got a big future ahead of him.

The thing is what he's talked about in his last 2 posts aren't really partisan at all! I don't think it's a sign he's too far gone when he's talking about things that are issues for everyone in America. It's a far cry from getting hung up on culture war bullshit! He has that post about the drug issue in the US - and it's a serious issue. And maybe, despite me shitting on him earlier in this thread, maybe it's a good thing there's a person like Russell Brand has started targeting right wing people as his audience - even though I think some of the shit he promotes is just absolute bullshit. Because one political point Brand's sort of retained as he's made his pivot to friend-of-the-far right is his views on how to deal with homelessness and addiction. I think Brand still spews a lot of shit but if he's getting people on the right to think more like he does regarding the problems of the most vulnerable in western society... then Brand's doing something positive despite his weird political pivot. It's hard to get a nation where individualism is so engrained in the culture to care about actual ways to deal with issues like drug addiction and homelessness (which are very related in the US, at least that's my view here in California) - but the first way America is going to meaningfully address this is by acknowledging the drug war policies have failed miserably. And that treating non-violent drug offenders the same as any other criminal is not really a solution to the problem. Currently the way the US is dealing with the situation is by letting it fester and letting people die in the streets, it's not humane. And it's not sanitary. And the 4 points he listed as what he'd want in an ideal candidate are... very reasonable. Alright, I tore apart that decentralised government thing because... the US is very decentralised (sometimes to it's detriment, imo) - and one of the things he listed as an ideal is sort of just an example of how the US government acts as an "arbiter of truth." But wanting corporate money out of politics? That's pretty far from a far-right view. Regulating corporations & labour regulations? That's pretty far from a far-right view, as well, especially in the US. Granted, he didn't really explain what sort of regulation reforms he'd want - but I think just by saying that he's probably in favour of shit that protects people over corporations (particularly if he wants corporate money out of politics). And the no war or conflicts - I think that's an ideal that every person around the world wants. I don't think it's particularly realistic considering there's the 2 global powers that firmly believe in economic imperialism, and then you've got shitheads like Putin who just want to go back to the olden days of plain old imperialism. I'm sure there's shitloads he and I disagree on politically because... well, we've seen each others posting histories on politics. But I don't think he's "that far gone" - I think his last 2 posts demonstrate a fair bit of common ground despite us having many wildly different political views. If we have that much common ground on these actual important issues... I think that really just highlights what I've said about the culture wars the media props up as being huge distraction issues. He's seen it himself and said it himself, corporate interests do not align with the interests of ordinary people. It looks like we can both identify the same problems and have pretty similar thoughts on these problems - and these are actual issues that impact most people, rather than the culture war bullshit that is used to divide people politically. I think it's a good thing to try to talk politics with people you don't agree with always. There's a reason I went through what he's looking for in a candidate, gave some of my own thoughts, and asked some questions (that I very much do hope you answer @OrangeKhrush) - especially when he's talking about things where I can see that even if I have political differences... I think he's found issues where we both have agreement, but maybe have different ideas (and maybe we don't have different ideas and are just in complete agreement). I might learn something from him, he might learn something from me. I don't think we want to live in a world where there's no room for political discussion. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than reading someone's political views and thinking "what the fuck?" At least here, even if we disagree, we're not just reading from two completely different pages. It's just policy differences on how to solve the same problems. If we were US politicians that would put us in the rare position of being able to make compromises that can actually get a law passed through both the senate and house that actually does something meaningful for most people in the country. And in that hypothetical scenario, that would make us better than 99% of the current politicians in the US senate and congress.

America's war on drugs is an absolute failure that just creates a profitable black market. Opioid abuse skyrocketing in the US though is pretty easily traced to doctors and the pharmaceutical industry working to push addictive opioids and creating millions of addicts. When doctors prescription pads dried up for these addicts, they've still got a huge demand for getting whacked out on opioids and they then turn to drug dealers. 50 years of failed drug policy that's just been amplified by corporate greed of big pharma have created this situation where the US has made it profitable for drug dealing gangs that make the Italian-American mafia and Hells Angels look like fucking boy scouts in comparison should probably be looked at. But I think it's hard to get people in society to give a fuck about drug addicts that have ruined their lives with the drugs they take. Especially in a country like America where the culture is very much centered around individuality and where it's likely that any changes to federal law will leave things open to states on how to deal with their drug problems. When states have been left to their own devices to do things like care for their homeless populations, a few have tried to put meaningful programs together - but others just bus their homeless to those states and think "job done" - I imagine something similar would happen if federal law didn't prevent that from happening. SF is a great example of that too - out of 100 homeless people arrested in SF, something like 80% of them were addicted to drugs. Only 4% of them were from SF or the SF Bay Area. As someone who struggled with addiction and had to overcome being an addict to really turn my life around... I do think the biggest issue in trying to seriously address drug addiction is getting the addicts to want help. Because you're never going to break the pattern of abuse and addiction if you don't actually want to end the addiction - and many of the crackheads and junkies out on the streets in various cities and states all over the US... they simply don't want help overcoming their addiction, they just want to be allowed to do their drugs in peace and rot on the streets. SF tried treating addicts with kid gloves, but now their mayor wants the police to crack down on public drug use and force addicts into treatment programs. I think the problem though goes well beyond any local government's ability to address this problem. Look at SF, homeless addicts are sent there to overburden California & SF's homeless relief programs (and now SF's local addiction relief programs). It's not really a local issue though, it's not even a state issue - this is a national issue affecting the whole US. I think there's some people who think there's an ethical problem with the police taking addicts off the street and forcing them into treatment programs "they don't want" - but I don't think it's such a bad alternative. Non-violent drug offenders shouldn't be treated the same as other criminals where there's a victim other than the drug user. But they shouldn't be allowed to be whacked out on the streets rotting in public just because they're the victims of their own crimes. But I think there needs to be a uniform set standard that's imposed as a minimum level program provided nationally. Some of this is confusing, some of it makes sense. 1.) What you're describing - whether or not the government are arbiters of truth... that's not really got anything to do with a decentralized government. The US is a pretty good example of a decentralized government, tbh. The federal government is broken up into the 3 branches. One of those branches, the most important one that also does the least amount of work, is broken into 2 sub-branches for reasons that I'm not sure I will ever understand. Then the states are all given a huge amount of autonomy in the US and then there's the state governments that are broken up into those same 3 branches. The judicial branch is effectively the "arbiters of truth" - they are the ones who currently determine whether speech falls outside protected speech or not. They're... a part of the government. If anything they've become increasingly partisan and less tied to interpreting laws following the written text of laws and previously established precedent that is considered precedent. So are you saying you want a US presidential candidate that is going to retain that kind of system? Isn't every candidate, barring anyone saying they want to re-write the constitution, in support of point #1? For me, an ideal candidate addressing the issues that exist in the decentralized government the US has would be one advocating for actual ethical reform over all 3 of these branches - particularly the judiciary and the legislative branch. 2.) I agree with this. I think if you're a politician, you've got to divest and put your assets in a blind trust. I think if you're on a board of directors and you want to hold any public position, you need to step down from a board of directors to demonstrate that your duty to your shareholders doesn't outweigh your duty to the public. I'd add to this: US politicians need to do something about the Citizens United supreme court case holding. Unfettered lobbying money is just legal bribery. That court case has ruined politics in the United States and placed political power even further in the hands of the ultra-wealthy. Campaign donations should only come from actual individuals. Not from "corporate persons" - corporate political contributions should be banned. And there should be a hard limit on how much an individual can contribute to any candidate and in total. It should be a very low number, tbh. A candidates political future should be dependent on the policies and ideas they are offering to the public, it should not be dependent on having huge corporate backing. Elected officials should represent the individuals making up their constituency, not national and multinational corporations. 3.) This exists already? Are you talking about expanding labour rights? I think generally speaking, I might agree with you. But if you're talking about rolling back workers protections or rolling back regulations imposed on corporations, I probably don't agree with you. I guess I just don't get quite what you mean. 4.) I think this is a nice ideal - but is it possible with the US's global hegemony? I think both Trump and Biden can probably point to being the least warlike presidents since the first George Bush. Afterall, Trump negotiated peace with the Taliban and Biden oversaw that ridiculous withdrawal. They were both heavily criticised for the withdrawal - often for the same reasons: 1.) human rights (which tbh, the US doesn't really give a fuck about), 2.) abandoning US interests in central Asia. Do you mean that you think the US shouldn't provide military support to countries like Ukraine? Because I think that's a pretty unpopular idea and it's not really in the US's national interests to let Russia expand westward into Europe (again) - or in the interests of US allies (including Ukraine). Russia invaded Ukraine many years ago when they took Crimea and many western governments have been training Ukrainian soldiers since then - not just since Russia's more recent push into the heart of Ukraine. And from the US perspective, the involvement in Ukraine is pretty ideal: 1.) Russia is a geopolitical rival of the US, tying up their resources in this war and all the domestic issues this has caused for Putin means they've weakened a rival simply by that rival invading another country; 2.) US soldiers don't die, but the US military industry complex makes money like the US is at war; 3.) Ukraine might be a country that's struggled with corruption issues, but it's still a matter of standing up for western values when invaded by a geopolitical rival - there's been strong bipartisan support for Ukraine in this war because it's a democracy being invaded by an authoritarian. No wars is a nice idea, but humans are cunts and the people in power are especially cunty. Russia and Ukraine proves you can have a global conflict without the US starting anything - and when that happens, countries are going to react to protect their interests in the aftermath of this war. Especially countries like the US that have their finger in every pie all around the world. Imperialism isn't dead, it's just less "in your face" than it used to be because it became un-cool to have an empire. But you're not going to have much success in the US running for office trying to advocate for the US weakening it's control on its empire. I just don't think it's possible to have a militant country like the US and then run on the promise of "no more involvement in any war" - the US has it's economic empire to run, their military's outrageous threat of force makes that empire possible.

Anyone tried out Instagram's Twitter competitor, Threads? There's quite a few twitter competitors out there - I think Threads might have an advantage with being connected to Instagram. So I'm beginning to see why Musk wanted to challenge Zuckerburg to that fight!

The way Chelsea treats their youth prospects, he might end up coming good with you back on a loan and you manage to buy him back for not too much money after they say they want him back then barely fucking play him. Accidental 4D chess move, perhaps.

Yeah if he's staying at the U21s for a while (assuming he always gets them playing at this level), I don't see the problem with moving him to the actual international team as then the vast majority of the players will be pretty familiar with him. I think Southgate having the benefit of being in an England side that actually made it far in a tournament is probably what makes him so well suited to being England manager tbh - I think he knows what he's got to instill in the squad to mentally be ready for going deep into a tournament, even if tactics aren't always the greatest. And tbh I think with international management, simple tactics and good management get you pretty far - so I can understand why Southgate's the best England manager in our lifetimes.

Maybe in NYC and parts of the SF bay area, but everywhere else I've been the mass transit might as well be non-existent.

I also say no. It's a bit different to Southgate making the step up from the U21s, as at least Southgate's got history of being an England player. I think that's got him a bit more ready to deal with the sort of ego that you'd find yourself managing as England manager.