Rayvin

I actually went and searched this because it feels like a non issue point, fully expecting your interpretation to be correct, but he's actually said it in a way where you could interpret it the other way too "They're bringing crime, they're bringing drugs, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people" Is what he actually said. So yeah, you could interpret 'they're rapists' both ways. That said, the spirit of the sentence was indeed referring to the people immigrating illegally. It's a suspect comment either way though unless he's supporting it with some evidence that I haven't seen. The clear interpretation of what he has said is that the overwhelming majority of them are criminals. Is this the case? I'll also stress that it more or less sets up all Mexican people in the US to be considered drug dealers and rapists until proven otherwise. Which, y'know, isn't great.

It doesn't sound to me like the US is actually going to do anything tbh. Which means appeasement is the name of the game.

Embassies being evacuated in the Ukraine. Invasion sounds closer than ever.

Yes, and that remains shameful.

Could you not also argue that refusing to go to war over Crimea or the shot down plane demonstrated restraint? A reluctance to trigger that war? A line in the sand has to be made somewhere, and if we aren't going to step in for the Ukraine, who do we step in for? If Putin invades it's as close as you can get to a legitimate war IMO. We can hit Russia anyway, and they can hit us. The proximity of the missiles surely isn't relevant at this point. I agree on China's diversity but as I've said a couple of times, they're eradicating a lot of that. Between the tightly controlled misinformation on public news broadcasts and the actual transportation of Han Chinese to various regions throughout the country in order to shore up 'favourable' support, they are actively working towards a singular Chinese mindset and perspective. A singular culture. If the US doesn't resist Putin on Ukraine, how do you see that playing out geopolitically? I feel like you're only looking at the diminishing of the US (which I agree would be a good thing in isolation). My fear is that it becomes a net bad thing with an emboldened Russia and China.

Have I visited China? I lived there for a year about a decade back. Haven't been back since 2015 though. If we fight a war for the Ukraine, is that not justified? In that we'll be helping them defend themselves?

You're fine I agree on the US, genuinely. But I don't think a declining version of itself with two alternates of similar destructive capability is a positive outcome for the world.

So China hasn't invaded Taiwan for the past few decades because it was economically counterproductive, but continues to feel that flying 150 warplanes over Taiwan's airspace, building up military forces in the south of China, and repeating commitments to take it back by force if necessary, are part of this strategy. The logic presumably being that this is done for domestic consumption and that they'll never actually do anything about it. We'll see, but Taiwan itself thinks the invasion will come this decade, 2025 in fact based on the current escalation of Chinese forces. Of course, they're probably just saying whatever the US tells them to say, I assume. You apparently look at China and see just the economic powerhouse it is/can become. You are not seeing the disgraced former imperial power that it considers itself to be. Chinese rhetoric around nationalism is standing up people who insult China and cause it to lose face. Every time China is insulted anywhere in the world, her people are up in arms, boycotting anything to do with the country in question and harassing/attacking foreigners from that country. They view the restoration of China in the global scene as an inevitability, and they will take back everything that was 'historically' theirs along the way. As they did with Tibet. They will also eradicate the varying ethnicities and cultures they claim as part of this, as they've been doing for the past 30 years anyway. I dunno what China did to earn the 'benign' label from some people on the left, I really don't - if the same government was set up over here it would be a far right fascist hellscape. As for "the US as saviour". I stopped buying that in university ffs. Then I spent the next ten years talking like you. Then I spent 5 years watching what the US pulling back from the world stage under Trump, and concluded that we're in a 'better the devil you know' situation. I am under no illusions that the US is a violent and imperialist state. I am also under no illusions that Russia and China would be any better if they could get away with it. And more importantly, I fundamentally do not think that a world in which all 3 exist in this state at the same time, is better than the one we have.

Really good question - I don't know, would probably depend how quickly it happened. I recall most Taiwanese are ok with being conquered when compared to being killed so it's possible that a Chinese invasion will be rapid. If it's over before it starts, the US would likely do nothing. That said, if all of Taiwan's US made defensive weapons made it last more than 24 hours, I think the pre-Trump US goes to bat for Taiwan, probably draws in a few regional players as well - Japan likely remilitarises due to China becoming a real threat rather than a theoretical one. The threat of the US doing -something- is the only reason nothing has happened though - what other explanation could there be? China has vowed to take it back after all.

China is also into cultural genocide, annexing independent countries, mass censorship, and generating a nationalism so fervent in their populace that even the government struggles to keep a lid on it at times. The current Taiwan issue has been going on for a few decades but every single Chinese person I spoke with while living out there was happy for their government to rain hellfire down on the island if it ever declared independence. The only thing stopping it happening IMO is the US. I mean we can't know for sure, but I'm convinced that the Ukraine is a watershed moment for the US as a hegemonic state - assuming Putin actually goes for it.

This is where I am too but it's equivalent to being a Communist on here

China is going to try to take Taiwan in the next 10 years IMO based on the developments in Hong Kong, and if Russia is allowed to take the Ukraine it'll be a signal to them that the US will be too weak to stop it. The Ukraine themselves have already suffered violence at the hands of Putin, so you can see why they'd be concerned. And the argument about who is responsible for the most death and violence etc I do take on board, but we obviously have no way of knowing what an alternative landscape would have looked like in which the US was a benign actor in regional conflicts. Who knows what the cost of that might have been. Probably consolidation into bigger regional blocs, in which smaller states are stifled and eliminated. Russia and China both have imperialist pasts and both believe in their right to be global super powers. China believes it should be where the US is. Pre-Trump I would have been totally with you both on this, but him pulling the US back from the world scene has noticeably harmed the balance of things, and IMO has led to the US being challenged here. This less stable world is a taste of what things will look like if the US loses here.

I feel like if the US is relegated to a regional power instead of the lone global hegemon, we'll see Russia and China rushing to grab their smaller satellite countries and ultimately the world becoming a more dangerous place. No one wants another world or cold war, and the egos of Russia and China being bruised unfairly on occasion is worth it if it avoids that situation. We need to be relying on diplomacy and interdependency to eliminate the US as a global player, not military force. We also very much need the EU to federalise and start developing its own confident and independent foreign policy for engagement with Russia.

Good post but I still feel like the US as to be the one winner in the whole situation or we end up in very dangerous territory.

I'll agree with this but is that what that particular protest was about? I honestly can't remember but the optics of it were horrific and I'm really struggling to imagine that any 'decent' people would have associated themselves with it as soon as it became clear what it was looking like. There does need to be a measured debate around culture and the legacies of key figures and I can understand both sides to the extent that if your ancestors were enslaved by people who now have statues set up of them in key public areas, you'll probably find that oppressive in the extreme. And offensive. But on the other hand, if you've been brought up being told how great all these people were and how many hospitals they built, you're not going to easily be able to go straight to the nuanced position. The only caveat on that latter point is that obviously some of us do go straight to that nuanced position. So why am I able to re-evaluate these statues and others are not - what distinguishes me from them in this sense? One or the other of us lacks something.

I agree with everyone on this Starmer is making political capital out of this without question, I'd heard nothing about STW in any sense recently and I'm in circles in which it would be heard of. IMO PL is right there. That said, there is as I understand it, no agreement from NATO not to include former USSR states. I thought there was for a while, so I could see the Russian angle on this, but apparently there isn't. As such, it's hard not to argue that if Ukraine wants to join because it feels threatened by Russia, it should be able to. Putin is a gangster and a major threat to Western society. We've already let him get away with too much in terms of destabilising our own countries and democracies, and if we don't make a stand here it's going to IMO open the door to a free for all elsewhere. If Russia takes the Ukraine then China will recognise that the US is too weak to defend Taiwan, and that's gone too. We suddenly have regional superpowers rather than a global enforcer. As a globalist, I'd prefer to see the US get involved here for the sake of maintaining the status quo as we move closer to stronger international ties with each other. Ukraine is a sovereign country and it is reasonable to aid them if Russia attacks.

I mean I'll agree on some of that. Obama had children in cages too, the outrage about that was annoying. But then Trump did make his entire election campaign about building walls and stopping immigration, so he made the rod for his own back in terms of the hysteria about it. Trump was elected off the back of a series of very fascist sounding statements it has to be said. "Lock her up" was one of them. The nazi comparisons were again, self inflicted to an extent. Not saying the media didn't gleefully dive headlong into it, but still. The very fine people on both sides line idk. Were there any non-KKK even there? This was a rally screaming about Jews and holding flaming torches wasn't it..? What type of "fine person" would attend such a thing? I will concede that I do think he said that without thinking about it. Unsure on the Mexican rapist point, don't recall that being discussed in a big way on here. What do you think about him inciting people to storm the capital? I cannot believe any right thinking republican could support such a thing. If BLM did it people would be calling out for mass firing squads.

I think it's largely down to what you reference in your final line - people wanted to see the back of Trump. I honestly think a decent number of the people who voted Biden would have voted for literally anyone other than Trump. Trump of course got a lot of votes too. I didn't look at the demographics this time, I probably should - but the problem certainly doesn't seem like to go away. I still don't think the Republicans will let Trump run again though.

He got the global corp. tax thing through, I approved of that at least. I thought he'd do literally nothing, but he did come out and make some decent attempts at getting things going. Seems to have lost some steam now though.

Biden is better than I thought he would be but this Russia stuff is a real test, possibly defining for his presidency. It's positive that the US is back on the world stage properly (words I never thought I'd write) but he has to make it convincing. I dunno where they go from there, certainly he won't be a two term president; Harris could win if they make it about her policies rather than her identity groups; can't see Trump winning the Republican ticket next time out, surely they'll close ranks on that.

Not going to pretend to be anywhere near the level of football expert as some on here but I thought ASM put in several decent balls against Everton that could have been converted if other players had been in slightly better positions. He quite easily could have had a hat trick of assists that game.

But equally, imagine our team of superstars versus their League One side in years to come, in some kind of cup game. That could be fantastic too, just watching them tie themselves into knots in advance of it, the fear setting in, etc. They'd be talking up how classy they were as some kind of insulation about the utter devastation that would be about to befall them, remembering that "it's still 6 in a row in the league though marra". Then we rock up, play the youth side and win 5 or 6-0. As a result the fans call for the manager's head, hire Jermain Defoe, now in his 50s, for a third time - he plays 60 seconds per game for the rest of the season and they have to re-mortgage the stadium to afford him. He does score though as the ball ricochets off his zimmer frame to achieve a consolation goal in a 7-1 home defeat to Burton Albion, a team that now has twice the attendance that they do. They can get promoted after that

As far as I can tell, the fans hated him because he'd gone past the 6 month threshold between 'undying, unconditional support and love' to 'wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire'; they lost that game against Bolton 6-0, and their ownership structure decided to follow the wisdom of the fans and get rid. Which is also why I think they approached Keane. At this point I think you could legitimately state that the fans are indirectly running the club, which explains pretty much everything about why they are where they are.

What the fuck is a ponshon Does he mean penchant?

I'd forgotten this, the irrational hatred of Dutch people Can't even remember why that started, was it something to do with Krul?