horsefly

Great article, explained so that even a simpleton might understand why Trump was Putin's greatest ally.

That's a simpleton's question. As relevant as pointing out that Russia invaded on Johnson's watch or any other leader of a country at the time. Just what was Biden supposed to do to prevent Russia invading? He made it very clear that he would support Ukraine with massive aid and sanctions against Russia, and that is precisely what he has done. The idea that Trump would have done anything to support Ukraine has already been trashed by Trump's very own words since the invasion, and those of his Maga morons in the Congress. And btw, was Trump caught on a phone recording refusing to provide military aid to the Ukraine unless they did him a favour by announcing an investigation of Hunter Biden?

Hahaha! What a joker you are. You seem to have forgotten that Trump was Mr "America First" who abdicated all responsibility for international order. So utterly craven was he in the presence of Putin that we were treated to the most embarrassing performance by a US president ever witnessed on the international stage, supporting Putin against the advice of all his security services:

Same old nonsense you've been repeating ad nauseum doesn't make it any less crazy as a plan to ensure we spend the foreseeable future in mundane mid-table obscurity haemorrhaging money, and having to sell all our best talent to compensate for that loss. If the current squad is so poor that, "We neither have the players or anywhere near the depth of quality in the squad." what on earth do you think it is likely to look like after several seasons in the Championship? If £200m wasn't enough to resolve all the issues you raised how on earth do you think having no millions at all will help? Just how will having zero cash help us, "get back to developing a new and better equipped team"? Most academy players do not even develop to Championship standard, and those that did show genuine PL standard would have to be sold off to pay the bills (and would want to leave for a genuinely ambitious team anyway if they had any self respect). In the meantime are you really claiming that CR is going to be buzzing with excitement watching a bunch of developing youngsters get trounced on a regular basis as they get the experience of first team football that they are not actually ready for. No more booing just, "Bravo lads! only a 4-0 loss this week, but in about 4 years time you might be good enough to push for promotion". As for "Farke four years ago"; all those finds discovered by "scouting principals" that proved so important to his success, would simply not be available now due to Brexit regulations. Only those with a proven international career would be given a visa, but of course, on your plan, we would have no money to buy such players. Also the last 4 years have seen the quality gap between PL and Championship considerably increase as a result of the ever widening wealth disparity. If it was a tall order to achieve PL survival 4 years ago, it is considerably harder with each passing year. Forest have literally had to buy a completely new squad to compete and even then they are among the favourites for demotion. But let's just entertain your idea for a foolish moment and imagine that your plan really did work and a team of youngsters were developed into a promotion winning squad; just what makes you think that they would be any "better equipped" to take on the PL than our previous squads? By definition they would be a bunch of players without any experience of PL football, so why are you so confident they would do so much better than our previous promoted squads?

Thanks for that brilliant intervention. Clearly we should let Russia commit mass murder, rape, and torture their way to victory in the Ukraine; how else can a war crime committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in WWII be compensated. Do you actually re-read what you have written before you shame yourself publicly?

Brexiteer advanced maths class:

Yep! Imagine being so thick that you are actually impressed by the Putin poodle Trump saying there needs to be peace in Ukraine. FFS! The only person who doesn't want peace in Ukraine is Putin. Thank God Biden is president, otherwise there would no longer be a Ukraine left for there to be peace in.

What we've always known to be true: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/study-conservatives-are-less-intelligent/ar-AA15IM4j?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=44f11642a7304fb2b1abb9b7338c504e Study: Conservatives are less intelligent Various studies have been trying for a long time to find out which group of voters – conservative or liberal, for example – is „smartest“ on average. Mostly measured by the so-called intelligence quotient. In long-term studies in particular, the results are the same – regardless of the countries in which the studies were conducted. In America, for example, it was found that young people who described themselves as „very conservative“ had an average IQ of 95 – five points below the average 100. By contrast, their peers who described themselves as „very liberal“ had an average IQ of 106. According to psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, writing in the journal Social Psychology Quartlery, this is mainly due to the fact that more intelligent people find it easier to behave differently than evolution has imposed. The results are consistent with two other British long-term studieswhich were evaluated by a group of Canadian scientists from Brock University in Ontario. The intelligence of around 9,000 children aged ten to eleven was determined. More than twenty years later, the test subjects were surveyed again. It was found that participants tended to hold right-wing views because it gave them a sense of „order“ or „preserving the status quo.“ Overall, it could be concluded that smart young people tend to vote Green or Liberal, whereas rigid mindsets that entail a desire for order tend to vote for more tradition-oriented parties.

Can't for the life of me think why the government would be so reticent to trumpet the latest fantastic post-Brexit trade deal: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/government-refuses-to-publish-economic-benefits-estimate-of-latest-brexit-trade-deal/ar-AA15Ji8l?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=10fcf3e4ecb34303b07a59efae2bdead Government refuses to publish economic benefits estimate of latest Brexit trade deal

When rational analysis fails just resort to the same old conspiracy theory tropes. How very boring, and how very dumb. Obviously arms companies will make money supplying weapons, duh! The point is that the people defending their country from an illegal invasion by the army of a crazed dictator want and need those weapons to fight their rightful cause. Perhaps you would rather the US hadn't supplied the UK weapons during WWII? Perhaps you think the US should have told us to make peace with Hitler instead of allowing those "vested interests" to profit? But do feel free to look a bit further and tell us just how "Biden and his handlers" are profiting from this war by aiding Ukraine to fight back against Russian tyranny. Then perhaps explain how allowing Russia to succeed in defeating Ukraine would make Europe and the world a safer place.

"I hope I'm not simplifying this", said the simpleton in an hilarious but all too rare moment of self-awareness. When you are reduced to posting as evidence for your cause the utterly banal and naïve rantings of a drug-addled failed comedian with a Messiah complex, best you give up.

Is this spoof or do you literally mean what you have written?

So you are indeed seriously claiming that it is traditional Tory economics to borrow multi billions to pay for unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy. Remind me which Tory chancellors from the past did that. Failing that try the following experiment to get a sense of "economic reality": Go to your bank and ask them for a £500,000 loan, tell them you have no assets against which to secure the money, then tell them you intend to give all the money away to your mates so they can spend it on cars, holidays or whatever. Oh! and you had better tell them to add the loan to the massive debt you already have. What do you reckon are your chances of getting that loan? The City is the economic reality with which every government has to contend. Your opinion that it "wet its pants" is entirely irrelevant. The City's response was entirely predictable to all but the lunatic PM and Chancellor, and you it seems.

Absolutely no interest in getting involved in your usual nonsense. Haven’t once said they’ll “only” accept 19 per cent In which case why be so stupid as to keep spouting the same tripe about 19% being unreasonable and making negotiation impossible? Repeat the same utterly spurious government garbage as much as you like, you're just a gullible stooge for Sunak whose only line has been exactly what you keep repeating, that 19% is unaffordable. Anyone who has bothered to think beyond the government's propaganda knows full well that the 19% figure was picked out by the unions because it represented precisely the figure that nurses pay has fallen in REAL terms since the Tories came to power. You would have to be pretty stupid to believe that it was nothing more than a way of saying to the government, "This is how much we have lost since you came to power, now make us an offer that doesn't continue to insult and exploit our proven commitment to the health of the people we care for". I know of not a single nurse who expects to get anything like 19%, what they want is for the government to acknowledge that yet another deal that amounts to yet another pay cut (given inflation) is no longer tolerable.

Erm! what do you think the wingbacks will be doing?

Is that meant to be a spoof? "Basic economic reality", as you so cutely put it, was that the Bank of England had to set aside circa £65bn to bail out pension funds that would otherwise have collapsed. Economic reality is determined by what the markets do, so I really don't know what you were looking at when they trashed the pound.

I'm afraid being a Tory apologist is precisely what you're doing by repeating the utterly disingenuous Sunak claim that the Nurses would only accept an unaffordable 19% pay deal. I repeat, it's a starting point for negotiation picked out by the nursing unions because it represents precisely how much the nurses have lost out in real terms from previous Tory pay deals. As for your claim "If it was a business deal, and someone made an offer like that, you’d walk away or go in at something equally ridiculously low and play hardball". Do you mean a deal like the one Rolls Royce agreed: "Rolls-Royce car workers win record pay package worth up to 17.6% " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64001956. Rolls Royce recognised that if they want to keep their workers at the company then they needed to award a pay rise that was merited. The Government is refusing to negotiate because it is trying to weaponize the nurses dispute to convince willing stooges like yourself that it is not their fault that the economy is in such a shocking state after 12 years of utterly incompetent Tory management.

19% was specifically chosen as it was precisely the amount by which nurse pay has fallen in real terms since the Tories have been in power. They didn't just pluck 19% out of the air. It is what would be required if they were to be precisely where they were a decade ago in real pay terms. Other professions have done considerably better during that period. The nurse leaders have been very clear they are prepared to negotiate and very obviously would compromise. It is the government alone who point blank refuse to negotiate despite the fact that it has done so on at least 4 occasions previously where a pay review body (PRB) has been involved (and despite the fact that Hunt himself refused to accept a PRB recommendation when he was Health Secretary in 2014).

You do realise how these negotiations standardly work don't you? One side asks for a high percentage that they know they won't get, the other side suggests a low percentage that they know is unacceptable. Then they negotiate for a percentage somewhere in between. You really have to be something of a government sop to believe their completely disingenuous line that the nurses demand is unaffordable. They know full well that negotiations would achieve an outcome nowhere near the 19% starting figure which was arrived at by the Unions as a demonstration of the genuine extent to which they have lost income in real terms over the last decade or so. What is "ridiculous" is a government that refuses to enter into negotiation despite the fact that it provided evidence to the pay review body that inflation in 2022 would be max 4% rather than the 11% that turned out to be the case.

Spot on Daz! Interesting to see that the only people in the US opposing military and financial support for Ukraine's defence are the extremist MAGA loon Putin patsies. Chastened by the Iraq war Obama and the UK were naively reticent to involve themselves in crucial conflicts and Putin seized the moment with glee to intervene in Syria and the Crimea. However the biggest Putin enabler of all was Trump by a mile, who did everything but fall to Putin's feet and lick his boots on camera. Remember this embarrassing episode (one among many):

All you ever come up with is the childish dichotomy that unless Putin is appeased the only other option is start a war and end up with WW3. So, I ask again, what happened after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979? Seems you somehow forgot to answer that question. Please explain how that war supports your view that, "Russia is too big and powerful and has nuclear power to be defeated. Putin will not accept defeat."

Indeed! I'm really secretly campaigning to replace Webber with Truss. After the borrowed billions she was prepared to lash out in tax cuts for the rich, just imagine the hundreds of millions she would be prepared to borrow to lash out on transfers. What could possibly go wrong???

Oh dear! The man who said "I have no intention of invading Ukraine" says "I'm ready for peace talks". I really don't need to say anything more do I!

Perhaps you would like to remind us of the outcome of Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. Surely poor benighted Afghanistan must have been completely routed in weeks given that "Russia is too big and powerful and has nuclear power to be defeated". Or did Russia start WW3 after it withdrew in ignominious defeat?

Oh dear! The man who protests "this is not an insult parlour", begins his post with, "So what's your answer, WW3?". Yeah, that's right, my answer is to start WW3 just as it must be the answer you think all of Ukraine's supporters (The US, EU, UK etc) want by continuing to help them fight for their land. I did recommend you listen to the Reith lecture given by Russian expert Dr Fiona Hill (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001g956) who discusses this particular fear from a perspective of years of experience of Russia and its diplomacy. Obviously you decided you know better than her and still perpetuate the childishly naïve claim that unless Ukraine acquiesces to Putin's demands Russia will unleash WW3. According to your early posts, we all "new" Russia would smash Ukraine within days and wouldn't stop until it had completely overrun the country. Strange, I seem to remember Putin withdrawing troops from the vast majority of Ukraine Russia had invaded. Come back again and say something worthwhile when you have listened to Hill.