@PatsKam@mbarrett9821 Hey, I'm a guy I'm 5ft 4. The last two times I've been out with friends I've had a woman just randomly come over and mock me because of my height. Obviously not exactly the same as your experience which is every bit as horrible. Some people just suck.
The arguments about Iran are so polarised that no one wants to admit that several things are true at once:
You'd be a fool not to have serious reservations about the idea of a regime change war, especially in the Middle East.
You'd also be a fool to allow terrorist-funding lunatics to develop nuclear weapons.
Neither the people condemning these strikes, nor the people cheering them on know how this is going to work out.
So far, Trump Administration interventions have been extraordinarily successful in achieving valid objectives within a highly limited scope.
The strikes on Iran during the 12 day war achieved destruction of several nuclear facilities.
The Venezuela operation decapitated the hostile regime and replaced Maduro with a non-hostile leader.
Both also achieved significant "don't fuck with us" deterrence globally.
However, it is not remotely clear at this moment in time whether something similar can be achieved in Iran.
I understand and fully empathise with the people who think regime change is not going to work in Iran and you'll end up with the same as what you had or worse.
And I understand just as much the people who celebrate an evil dictator being killed and Iran's nuclear and military assets being degraded further.
The thing we do not know, and the thing that will determine whether this has all been worth it, is what the future leadership of Iran will look like. This seems to me to be the biggest risk Donald Trump has taken at any time in his first or second term. If it pays off, the reward both domestically and globally will be huge. If it doesn't and things go south, it could derail his Presidency and define his legacy like Iraq did for Blair and Bush.
Very few people have any idea which of these scenarios is more likely and one thing is for sure: none of them are talking about it on social media because they're all sitting in command bunkers, not on X.
I hope the people of Iran are released from living under tyranny. I hope the peoples of the Middle East can live in peace.
I hope the takeaway for any would-be terrorist is the realisation that October 7 might not have been such a good idea.
I hope that with the Middle East stabilised, the US can turn its attentions to the theatres that really matters to the security of the West: Russia and China.
Whether any of that happens remains to be seen and it seems the hardest thing for anyone to do is to not express an opinion before the smoke has cleared.
It is frankly staggering that Craig Guildford has not resigned.
He told MPs the Jewish community had been consulted and approved the decision.
They hadn’t been and didn’t.
He said they relied on intel from Dutch police.
The Dutch contradicted that
And he told MPs the force hadn’t used AI.
They had.
How can you have trust in a Chief Constable - a Chief Constable for goodness sake - who seems to struggle with the truth? Someone who repeatedly misled parliament.
This looks like a classic case from the darker days of policing of reaching a judgement first and then massaging/cooking/inventing the evidence to justify it.
It is shameless
Back to the 1997 Canadian Grand prix. When Jos Verstappen and Mika Salo in their Tyrrell's are chasing down Rubens Barrichello in his Stewart.
No DRS, Gravel and balls of steel #F1#RetroF1
I miss these days.
A friend of mine, who has to remain anonymous - but rest assured, does sterling work for the cause behind the scenes - wrote this ⤵️ in a chat in response to Willoughby’s inane tweet. And with her permission I’m putting it up here, because I think it deserves a wider audience.
“His ignorance of feminism and the suffragist movement is SO very male, in a stupid, childish, deliberately obtuse ‘hahaha you wanted equality, so it’s fine if men beat up women in the boxing ring’ way.
I remember being a tiny girl - young enough that the comparative physical strength of boys and girls hadn’t really made an impression on me yet - and I was many years away from concerns about periods and pregnancy and sex, and my mum explaining to me how feminism didn’t mean that women and men were the same, it meant that they had different needs and needed different help at different times. I was years away from fully understanding it, but she clearly explained it well enough to make a strong impression on me.
And then there’s all the working class history of suffragists who weren’t the Pankhursts, and how the campaign for the vote often went along with other movements such as temperance - which seems odd, until you remember that you can’t cast a vote if you’ve been beaten to death by a violent drunken husband and the law and society aren’t on your side if you leave him.
Only an absolute fool (or someone who chooses to be ignorant) truly believes that the vote was just a toy hankered after by spoiled rich women with no other problems in life. That was the propaganda put about by the anti-suffragists at the time (and there were MANY outspoken women who didn’t want the vote and didn’t want other women to have it) and awful people like Willoughby are still repeating it over a century later. He’s ignorant by choice *and* naturally stupid. What a combination.”
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.
@SpannersReady Why wouldn't I? We've seen you're allowed to push people off provided you're on the inside and aa of yesterday we've seen you're allowed to do it in a fast corner.
Why on earth would I think differently. We've literally seen it play out.
@SpannersReady Why wouldn't it?
And it's not my logic. I wish the driver on the inside DID have to give room on the outside but that isn't the case anymore and I've seen nothing to suggest the speed of the corner changes that.
@SpannersReady The rules seemingly allow you to run your opponent off track provided you're on the inside.
What you seem to be arguing is that doesn't apply in anything but slow corners.
I don't see how that's obvious... I don't know why a distinction would be made based on the corner.
@SpannersReady Imagine being so arrogant you honestly believe your opinion HAS to be right so strongly that you think anyone who disagrees has to be insincere or a bad actor.
@SpannersReady Flat out would be good. We'd at least see cars on the edge and drivers making mistakes. What we saw today was the worst of both worlds. A one stop race but only doable as a one stop if you don't push.
"Performances that in my mind mark Ayrton Senna not just for greatest, but for the ultimate. The guy is without a doubt head and shoulders above everybody else currently in Formula 1."
John Watson
🎞 Eurosport, 1993 San Marino GP Qualifying.
@Madz_Grant The worst thing is for this to be online the geezer effing jeffing must have posted it somewhere which means he's actually PROUD of his behaviour.
It's so good to finally see this being talked about so honestly on mainstream TV. There was a time where I could never see this coming. @megynkelly nails it 👏👏👏