leicsmac

Sinner gets three month ban for positive doping tests. Sounds like he made a deal with the ATP.

Exactly this. It's been building for the last decade, and history shows very clearly where it ends, if it isn't stopped. Only this time, the body count might not stop at tens of millions.

I guess it comes down to the definitions of "misinformation" and "what they want" then. As well as how sovereign a human mind really is. Because, IMO, the kind of "misinformation" (or not) Vance and his brand of nationalists pour out will pretty obviously lead to ethnic cleansing, warfare (in the cause of diminished resources or not), and widespread death and destruction. I've said it since these sentiments started getting traction again in the mid 2010s, and everything that has happened since has only made that more and more obvious. Unless nations are willing to kneel and kiss Trump's ring, I don't foresee that being likely for now.

Ethnonationalist in pushing ethnonationalism and massive hypocrisy (exactly what is his administration doing to any kind of opposition right now? It isn't offering them freedom of expression) shocker. The cherry on top, of course, being the disparaging of an individual who has more empathy and concern for the future of our species in her little finger than his entire administration has in their entire bodies.

I love that class distinction makes it into every area of UK society, up to and including making up a jacket potato.

That may well be the point. These people desire power over other people at any cost, and perhaps they've decided that burning the world and ruling the ashes is the easiest way.

And there's enough "special relationship" sentiment in the press and in the UK as a whole for cutting ties with them to really sell, as well. It would be nice though, if the current UK government could not act like sycophants.

In terms of the style of each government? Yes, very different. In terms of the way they view anyone not pandering to their own national interest and their social policies towards minority communities? I'm not so sure. Of course, the US has the ability to change course in a few years. At the present time, anyway.

Treat them the same way the UK treats the Chinese - a potentially hostile belligerent who shares few of the UKs social values but with whom some cooperation on global matters is needed.

...which, while correct, will sadly be outweighed by the wackjob stuff.

Critique without better alternatives certainly isn't entirely invalid, but seeing as it doesn't do the work to suggest a better way and instead suggests a gamble with lives and money (in this case) at best, it does appear less valid to me.

RFK confirmed as Health Secretary. Make Polio Great Again.

You can see the sociopathy lurking behind the eyes. Can't disagree with either of those statements.

Well, among the other two leading lights, one of them has a recent fourteen year track record to examine on that score, and the other hasn't had power but given the content of at least some of their promises it might be better for the future if they weren't kept. Edit: the relevant point is that people can slam the current government for broken promises all they like, some of it may even be true, but in the absence of a stated and proven better option it all sounds rather hollow.

Yes, intersectionality is really important.

I was thinking more about promises made by other parties should they have power and whether or not them being kept is in any way a good idea for the future of a great many people.

That's clearly rather subjective, but depending on one's definition of breaking promises I'd posit that rules out either all three or none of the largest polling parties right now. Also, it might depend on the promises being made.

Not speaking about Mdme Reeves personally, but is there a better general government option right now? And what would it be?

Wouldn't it be nice if all the death worshippers bound and determined on the supremacy of their own different ideologies simply decided to fight among themselves and left all the people with a hint of empathy alone to actually secure a future for our species civilisation?

Does the UK really have the capacity to stand on its own in the way described here for any length of time? If this legislation is not going to/ doesn't deserve to pass, I'm hoping that solutions for better palliative care are going to be included with that, because otherwise we end up with a situation for many families that is equally as painful as what is described here.

The US hasn't made any kind of effort to address domestic policy since the 1960's, regardless of military spending. If they somehow choose to abandon their ideal of rugged individualism/social Darwinism and address it now no matter what they do in terms of foreign policy, I'd be shocked.

As per above, FPTP will mean you're likely right there - Tories and Reform combined would get plenty of votes, but not enough seats. But four years is a long time. Who thought last time round it would go from a Boris 80 seat majority to a Starmer 170 seat landslide in roughly that time? I think it's more that only things immediately in their own line of sight and affecting them are "real" to them - the suffering of strangers is abstract. Understandable, but not excusable, given the consequences of that thought process when put into policy.

Oddly enough, it may in fact be possible to be a reasonably influential nation power without having enough firepower to blow up the world - unless those others that do it are wrong, too. Given that all the others also ignore the vast drop in resource availability on the horizon and closing fast that will require massive fast technological adaptability across the world or outright warfare, I think every option henceforth is "cross your fingers".

I'm not sure that Russia can keep up its current level of military activity for any length of time or escalate it, in terms of money and manpower. Surely in an economic race the combined European economies - much less the US or Chinese - would win that. Of course, the truth is that no one wins such a conflict anyway. Reform are almost without doubt a bigger threat now. They don't have to rely upon whether or not critique of Starmers responses is legit or not - the base backing them will always believe that it is.

Appreciate the clarification. Perhaps the UK should have used the peacetime dividend to make public services vaguely reasonable then, given that in this apparent new reality there will be no money except for soldiers and armaments, it would appear. I can't see such a rush to military buildup by the UK and European nations ending anywhere but badly both economically and (eventually) in much more stark terms than that, but it may be that if they don't the shit hits the fan anyway. We live in interesting times.