hypochondriac

My point is that a variation of a plan like this was always imo the most likely end to all this. Russia won't just surrender and we don't have the political will or the resources once America stop funding Ukraine to simply carry on without them. There will be a negotiated settlement that ends this in my opinion. You disagree let's wait a little while and see which scenario is most likely.

Oh look. Almost word for word what I posted yesterday.

That's a bit like creating a law that the sky is blue and 1+1=2. What a shame it has got to the point that it needs legislation for something that 99% of people already know to be true.

How many sexes are there soggy?

Trump has announced he's outlawing gender transition surgery for children in America. One massive positive of him coming into power.

https://x.com/RachaelWongAus/status/1854755936801636405?t=5zGKf-IV9WKX8uQkYMQ88w&s=19 This is a great thread which sums up a few reasons why Trump won. Worth a read for anyone interested.

Yep. On balance I think it should continue but I don't think it will.

That would be the case if a piece of paper were signed and nothing else happened. It would have to be rigorously enforced. Supposedly there was talk of certain countries signing an agreement that further acts of aggression relating to this matter would mean intervention from those other countries in support of Ukraine. I don't see how that's a success for Russia. How do you propose it ends given Trump in a best case scenario will reduce his support for Ukraine.

Which is why it would probably be some sort of wooly compromise. Leaving the door open for future membership but stating it's not on the cards any time soon.

"Ukraine would not need to permanently concede the loss of territory but could pursue nonmilitary means to regain its 1991 borders. Russia, for its part, would face continued repercussions, as sanctions would remain in place, and its frozen assets would be used to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction" "Beebe and Lieven imply that Ukraine would need to accept continued occupation of the territory presently under Moscow’s control. However, they likewise propose that the loss need not be permanent and would be up for negotiation between the two sides sometime down the road." Personally I don't see that as outlandish.

It's going to end with some sort of negotiation in the end. The only question is when that's going to be.

To be honest if Trump forces Ukraine to settle and maybe allow Russia to have Crimea and a few other bits that are basically Russian and not allow Ukraine to join NATO, the majority of the general public around the world will be pleased even if the public response will be outrage.

In some ways Trump is rather ingenious because not only is he entertaining and genuinely quite amusing at times, he can simultaneously be an extremely wealthy individual and appeal to the working class in a way that no American politician can. Even being able to have fun and be less serious provides welcome relief to a public used to the same sort of fake narrative and manner from regular politicians. That's a big reason he won imo.

I'd argue that the likes of the Clintons are much more an example of the elite. Trump didn't have every celebrity going like Beyonce, mark hamill, Taylor Swift etc shilling for him. The Clintons spent half their lives in politics and are worth hundreds of millions since getting into power. The American people had four years of both political parties and decided they preferred the experience of four years of Trump. It's not about one side being good and one being bad, it's not even about if people particularly liked Trump or not. The choice for the American public was clear and they obviously preferred the way the world was under Trump, the good the bad and the ugly. That the Democrats failed to convince so badly is on them.

Living in a free country means you can pretty much call people what you like. I just wouldn't go around acting shocked when those people being labelled tell the political side labelling them to fuck off at the ballot box.

Like I said, not really at the same level as literally Hitler, racist, sexist etc etc. You're hardly likely to run the risk of losing your job or having your life destroyed because someone falsely accuses you of being a snowflake or part of the woke brigade.

Lol

Has he? He's definitely been a bit better but I'm pretty surprised he's been deemed good enough for England.

Do you think attitudes like yours make it more or less likely that there will be repeats of these types of results in the future? The reason I ask is because in my view the attitude you're displaying here is very likely to have had at least some impact in a portion of the American public voting Republican.

So many people on the left denegrate those who don't vote for them as thick, evil or dangerous. This is to a much greater degree than someone on the right would do the same to someone on the left.

Great news. If I were American this would be a big reason for voting for him. With the Cass report in this country, it looks like a lot of this child abuse will be over: https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1854463035756122553?t=qNGQd1J7ih1flg6Iku0V7w&s=19

I don't think Trump won in 2020 but it really is quite astonishing what an anomaly it was for voting.

Yes it's a much lower burden of proof. Good article on the BBC today on why Harris lost. One of the points made is that she focused too much on Trump and who he was rather than what she had to offer and her policies. The public already know all there is to know about Trump but they didn't really know what she was offering and she didn't tell them. People are fed up hearing about what an evil nazi Trump is, they can make their own mind up. Present a positive vision for the country with proper policies and maybe she would have done better.

Terrible results for them tonight with Luton winning and Preston nicking a draw. Cardiff in not too bad form despite their loss. Great stuff.

Sounds like there's a possibility of some projection going on....