leicsmac

OK... so given this is a proposed problem, what is the proposed solution? Assume all such threats are bluffs and act accordingly? That only has to be wrong once. Also, that this piece didn't mention the Monroe Doctrine is a little hypocritical, given that "allows" the US to do exactly what it says Russia is doing in the second paragraph here. Very interesting analysis overall, though.

Absolutely right, especially about the difficult situation part. NB. Purely to reiterate here, what has been publicly stated about Russian nuclear weapons use of any type is "only when under nuclear attack or when under conventional attack and the existence of the state is threatened". Now, what defines the second part of that could (rather dangerously) be open to wide interpretation, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people would conclude that Ukraine do not have the capacity to threaten the existence of the Russian state. Of course, nuclear weaponry isn't the only WMD that Russia possess and should things escalate, they might decide instead to take a slightly smaller step up involving chemical or other disabling weaponry (targeting food and water and the means to distribute it?) on a big scale on a city. Here's hoping not.

If what's being said is true, it's another boost for the AfD and those that think like them. Dispiriting.

Reasonably routine win in the end.

And that's fair. Think this discussion has come up before and my answer has always been the same - I do want accuracy, and for me that ties into being the result that matters the most to me, not how it is obtained, as long as that is within the rules and the rules are correctly applied.

For me that's immaterial. The goal was incorrectly ruled out, then after intervention it was correctly given. But I won't be labour the point much more, this is the match thread and I know we see eye to eye on most but not all things.

There was an error. It was corrected. I would say that's a better game. But I guess that's subjective.

But, but, but... we don't want that in our gameeeeeee... .... right? How so?

If those supposedly worried about that matter really wanted to address the issue in a humanitarian fashion, they'd also be thinking about preventing a situation a little ways away that will result in levels of migration that will make the levels today look like a single bus coming into Dover. Or not. The humanitarian option is, well, optional, to short term spatial and temporal thinking apparently.

It may do even if it wasn't - the folks involved at Southport, Tamworth etc didn't exactly wait for a jury or convincing evidence before taking action. The dark side of social media strikes again.

I mean, yes, he will stop it, by allowing a complete Russian victory, that is.

Beware digital misinformation.

Context is so very important, isn't it? (And so at other factors that are being overlooked that could vastly affect the price of energy and everything else in a couple of decades, which tend to not factor into the thoughts of those wanting a quick material gain now, too.)

Emphasis on the "slightly".

Tbh that's likely exactly what he'll say, only dressed up in slightly better language.

I would agree, yeah. I just hope that Harris can stick to the path she's on and open a lead, I thought she was a decent candidate four years ago (of course she has weaknesses, but then so do all folks going for that post).

The polling and betting markets appear to be reflecting this. But there's still a long way to go.

Woakes is absolute Kryptonite for batters in English conditions. A great mystery how he's so different here and abroad.

Fantastic innings from Smith.

How I feel about this story and how much I want it to be true and consequential directly relies on which paper has the exclusive tomorrow, in all honesty.

What, about Kohli being the only one that can bat in English conditions, the fans actually having a larger share of the ground than the English fans and the quicks being... well, actually pretty well adapted to seaming conditions and pitches these days? Yup.

Because the way things are over there flattens the bell curve, and accentuates both the very best and worst. Which is fair except when paired with a political system that gives a lot of individual power across all policies. It often doesn't end well.

Congratulations, you're much less reliant on events beyond your control for your mental health. There are others who perhaps take football too seriously who might want to consider that.

Given RKs stance on a lot of scientific issues runs much closer to Trump and the Repubs than the Dems, I'm not sure how much of a loss that part of it is, and I'm not sure how open his votes were to the Dems anyway. Of course, every vote counts but bringing an antivax climate change ignorer into the fold to get them might not be the best course of action. Tricky.

On the above topic, UK drinking culture by comparison to a lot of places. An evening or a day steadily having a few drinks and relaxing vs. Getting as shitfaced as possible as fast as possible with often violent results.