Rayvin

...At the risk of heading further over to the 'park' side (although I'll maintain I've been universally anti-aggression for years and that critical analysis of what states are doing doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist), the US certainly seems to have encircled Russia. I'm actually surprised people don't think this is intentional, given how high stakes the game tends to be. I found this map of US military bases, and they all cluster around Russia (and China). https://futuristrendcast.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/u-s-bases-near-russia.jpg It looks as though it's largely on one side, but of course doesn't consider that the US itself is on the other side. I think at best you could say that they've unintentionally encircled Russia. Although I can't think why anyone would give them the benefit of that doubt. I think the fact that NATO still exists (and has expanded since the collapse of the USSR) would eliminate most of the doubt for me, in truth. That said, I don't know anything about how involved Clinton is in any of this. My issue with him and her really boils down to the fact that they're going to simply prolong the death of a status quo that is failing all over the West.

What do you mean no criticism of China? In the MSM? I'll criticise China to anyone who'll listen.

He's quit I gather. UKIP looked fucked to me. Tearing themselves apart more efficiently than even Labour were now. Good news, they can fuck off. Apparently a nothing party without Farage.

Agreed.

They'll be under huge pressure from the yanks atm. Fuck sake, this is going to end in tears isn't it...

Which of course raises the question of why they thought she was preferable...

Jury is still out for me, but that's probably because it's nigh on impossible to actually watch us. I'll take your word for it.

My view on the conflict now is that the only way it will end is when Israel has fully subjugated what's left of Palestine, and essentially kicked all dissidents out of the country or had them all shot. I'm not saying that's what will happen - I think there'll be endless violence instead. But the only way to peace from here would be if they just got on with it, killed/evicted literally everyone who doesn't like them, and then got on with life. Hamas can't ever win, so the longer it goes on, the more deaths across generations we will have. Either Israel wins an absolute victory, or no one does. Rationally, that's the only way. I actually suspect that the Israeli government has come to the same conclusion, and if the world wasn't watching, would have 'resolved' this by now. As for Corbyn - I just don't see that it's anything more than a distraction at this point. I do take the point about leadership I suppose, but that's not what I'm voting for him based on. I'm voting for the policies. I guess that's why I find it so easy to overlook the rest. I see him as leading 600,000 people, not just the PLP.

I think that's, generally, fair. But Palestine and Israel aren't the West. And indeed, you could argue that Jewish people going into Palestine and setting up their own state is exactly what extreme Muslims want to do in Western countries. So it's easy to see why the people who were forced to accept this, remain pissed off. If it had happened to us, I would be. Israel has a responsibility, moreso than other nations, to peacefully co-exist with those around it. It is now incapable of this as it burned too many bridges, and killed too many people in the run up to its establishment. Look at this list of killings before Palestine was split up, and who becomes predominantly responsible for them in the run up to WWII. Those would be terrorists in this day and age incidentally. And those terrorists inherited a nation. The terrorists on the other side, continued to be just terrorists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine All I'm saying is, this 'nationhood' that Israel has makes its killing no more credible now than it was back then.

Clark didn't look like he could cut it with Villa...

Aye but we have something about us - as do Wolves. Sunderland have looked beyond hopeless. If they had any results this season that gave the impression that they could put in an assured performance, I might agree. As it stands, I don't think they'll get more than 1 point from the next 4 games.

Bournemouth beat Hull 6-1 at the weekend... I reckon they can handle Sunderland.

I'm gonna go for a draw on this one. They were alright at the start of the season and it'd be just our luck for them to turn it on against us.

Agreed, not convinced by Mourinho at all these days. Busted flush.

I reckon they know that they wouldn't be coming back up any time soon. The Championship is full of 'big' clubs who've just got stuck there. To be honest, our refusal to entertain the possibility that it might happen to us is probably one of the factors behind the fact that we're doing so well. We're just not accepting it and doing whatever is necessary to get back out. Hard to say they'd do the same.

In light of that, which I agree with, who do you think the players who will form the basis of that system will be? Ritchie and Shelvey look good bets, as does Hayden. Some of the others though, I reckon he's still toying with. But for the experiment to work, a decent number of the players have to be kept.

Their run for the next few games doesn't look good. I can't see any of the next 4 where they'd pick up points. Their home match against Hull would be the first one realistically, and that's back end of November. They might get something away at West Ham, but that's as optimistic as I think they can get.

There are a few of them who see him as the issue mind. I think the situation is becoming serious enough now that they're actually having to confront reality. That said, their real issue is that they're just shit. I don't think there's anything structurally wrong in the background, it's just that Short is trigger happy and they've bought shit continuously year on year. That's it.

On the first part - I choose not to see that distinction, sorry. I choose to just look at what the institution, state, political party, whatever, is responsible for. Whether one side has been called a terrorist organisation or not makes no odds to me. What matters is who is killing who, why, and with how many deaths. Presumably if the tables were turned (and we still supported Israel), Hamas would be a 'fascist dictatorship' and Israel would be freedom fighters. If you take the labels away, just look at who is doing what. In terms of Corbyn's involvement, he just sticks to his principles. I really don't see why this bothers so many people. I couldn't care less what the MSM thinks of him, I really couldn't. I'll just look at what he says, and what he does, when it comes to policies. And I've seen him out speaking about giving people a better life in the city centre in Newcastle, I've seen him stick to his guns on issues he believes in despite media attacks, and I've seen the whole Labour party try to kick him out and his success in beating them back. I'll worry about anti-semitism in Labour when it comes to more than just a few randoms making stupid comments. Incidentally, Naz Shah and Livingstone were both in Labour before Corbyn was leader weren't they? What was Miliband doing to tackle their anti-semitic beliefs exactly? It's not like, all of a sudden, Corbyn got in and they went to the dark side.

They're supposed to be neutral aren't they? It's not an internal battle, it's an external one for voters to decide on candidates based on their policies. I mean, I'm sure the establishment does this all the time. But still, it's not good - we deserve an unbiased, uninfluenced choice. It's the same shit New Labour tried to do with Corbyn although done much more competently. By releasing it, it will hopefully mean that the next time around, the establishment candidate will have less natural trust to work with. The more they're undermined, the better.

That's no different to our other politicians saying they're 'friends of Israel' if we assume that both sides are as bad as each other, is it? Except that only one side has the power in that argument and that Corbyn's position has been to try and broker peace, not mindless violence.

Gotcha. Part of me hopes he has something on her you know. In a 'some men just want to watch the world burn' sense, that is.

I was just reading on her Pacific views. Sounds a bit like Obama's Asian pivot to be honest. Not sure there's too much to worry about there? Especially since that was widely considered to have failed.

Manifest Destiny? Seriously?!