Monzanator

1 hour ago, Olympian1010 said:

It’s much more than just a gun issue, but your absolutely right about that compounding it. We have a terrible police culture in this country as well. Plus, you can add in factors like racial inequality, poverty, and mental health issues. It’s just bad all-around and the summary executions of black people by officers is just another consequence like school shooting or the opioid epidemic.

USA has made their own bed and no political party is willing to strike the Second Amendment. down. All this talk about progress and everyone is willing to stick to something that's been written in 1791 when you could fire two bullets in 90 seconds

5 hours ago, up and down said:

 

The world is getting too inhuman to even believe it. I just cannot believe that someone has been murdered in such a manner on a broad daylight. Worse of all seems like the person kneeling on this man is enjoying the process. So horrible to see. May the truth prevail. I hope the person who did this is being send to the prison and hang to death for what he has done. This is the worst first degree murder ever.

In a country with such liberal gun rights I find it not surprising that police acts so brutally. There is way too much risk a policeman gets shots on someone's back yard as people can store a whole gun arsenal in their living room.

In such countries like Poland where gun access is as strict as they come there is no such problem. We've had like one case over the past several years when some petty criminal and suspected drug dealer got tasered and died due to a cardiac arrest. That's just about it.

3 hours ago, heywoodu said:

 

Well you know, before he died three years ago (in Leclerc's utterly dominant F2 season, where he won in Baku a couple of days after the death of his father and overall just punished everyone for the entire year).

That's why nobody talks about the money in Leclerc's case. Because he's a talented, rich kid. Lance Stroll is not-so-talented rich kid.

Pastor Maldonado won a F1 Grand Prix yet still everyone says he only got there due to PDVSA money. In this case pros don't outweigh the cons.

Andrea de Cesaris gained a very bad reputation in the 80s but he had a pole position, some podiums and almost won a couple of races. His father was a big shot in Marlboro distribution in Italy hence Andrea always had the financial backing because nobody was turning tobacco sponsors away back then. He's more like what Maldonado used to be 20 years later but actually lasted 14 years in F1.

36 minutes ago, Federer91 said:

The only thing i don't like in motor sports is the money drivers. In many cases, it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, because your chance to make it in the big leagues will be given to the guy with the big sponsors or rich family heritage, who will fund the team. This has become very obvious in the last 10-15 years, since the costs in motor sports have skyrocketed. 

 

The dominant car/teams theory is one, that has always been on the table. Is it unfair to the drivers to have different cars? In most ways yes.

 

But motor sports have always been about not only racing on the track, but competing outside as well. The race of who can build the best car. Any team can have the dominant car, if they work the right way, it's not something that is certain. Mercedes are dominating now F1, but before them it was Red Bull, before them Ferrari, Williams, McLaren. Plus in present day, on most (lower/different) racing series, they have implemented almost the same regulations to the cars, as to have a more driver battle.

 

No sport is or will be completely fair. I would say the NCAA system isn't fair to the rest of the world athletes, because they don't have the same opportunity in the other countries. The US have found an edge on how to produce super athletes, just like some motor sport teams have found an edge to make a better car, than the rest.  

 

 

Pay drivers are motor racing's lore. This is not a sport for the poor. Nobody's gonna give you a car that costs hundreds of millions of dollars and say, go ahead now do some laps and it doesn't matter if you crash it. Auto racing is the most expensive sport out there, if you can't cover your bills, you're out.

Actually pay drivers have decreased in F1 lately, other than Lance Stroll there's nobody who can de dismissed as such. Struggling teams like Williams had to take him and now Lafiti. Actually George Russell is a pay driver to a degree since he belongs to Mercedes and his hiring gives Williams a discount on the engine lease. Same happens with Ferrari juniors in Sauber/Alfa Romeo. Charles Leclerc's father is probably the biggest landlord in Monaco. Did his family money help him to get where he is now? Of course but nobody talks about the money anymore because he has shown real talent. Stroll on the other hand...

Hold the phone! Dennis Diekmeier has scored a goal in professional football (in 2. Bundesliga)

He still holds the Bundesliga record for most games by a non-keeper without scoring a single goal (203). It's unlikely he will play in Bundesliga again but at least he's scored in his 60th game in the second-tier!

2 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Wish is one of the reasons I hate auto racing. No matter what league you watch, there will always be 2 or 3 teams that dominate, and no one else will ever have a chance.

There's a different twist to the plot these days. The tobacco ban has basically driven most of the meaningful privateers off. Even former greats like Williams in F1 are struggling big time. It's a manufacturer and big company sport these days. You can barely find genuine sponsors but car manufacturers can provide all the money hence they call the shots.

15 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

It’s like you said though, he could have chosen not to participate, or he could have just enjoyed himself at the back of the grid. Instead he attempted to cheat and ruined the experience for other drivers. 
 

I watch a lot of virtual racing, and maybe that’s why I’m so annoyed by these dumbasses that don’t take it seriously, but I don’t think that it’s unfair to have some consequences. 
 

The IAAF had their backyard pole vault, Kendricks didn’t hire a stand-in. Imagine how pissed Athletics would have been if he had. This is a poor analogy (because I don’t think it would ever happen), but hopefully it makes the point I want it to.

 

When you are a professional (or elite amateur) athlete, who have a responsibility to set a good example for those younger than you. Other people look towards you as well, so important to model good behavior. Your behavior doesn’t have to perfect (and no one ever will be perfect), but I feel like not cheating isn’t a high standard to set for someone.

Auto Racing is about money. If Santino Ferrucci can find a ride in America then all bets are off. Daniel Abt has HEAVY auto industry family backing, that's why he's a race car driver to begin with. Audi pulled out of Le Mans already and DTM next season, Formula E is their only calling card left and Abt Sportsline is king there.

As long as ABT Sportsline runs the Formula E team for Audi, he will be fine

19 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

Elliott and his crew chief have some talking to do, that was not the smartest pit stop ever.

If he stayed out, more cars behind him would pit and he'd finish lower than 3rd/2nd in the end IMO. He restarted from the sixth row, if he was the leader, those who pitted would be on the fourth row on the restart IMO. He wouldn't have held on to win. In most overtime races leaders who pit before GWC usually don't win if there's only one overtime period. The rule itself is stupid of course but NASCAR is the master of artificial gimmicks and rules over the past 16 years.

4 minutes ago, rajiv said:

I don't see how population size of a country has much to do with anything . Rich populous countries such as USA should have advantages in technology and research that small population countries -whether rich or not -don't have .

American covid deaths on a per capita basis are run of the mill with Western European numbers  -neither particularly  better or worse  ( I think deaths per million is the key stat )

America's problem -if I may say so - are mainly to do with that the country is becoming ungovernable being composed of several tribes who simply can't get on with each other . All countries have a shelf life - maybe USA is reaching it's use by date 

Countries like Australia and NZ are high trust societies -this makes all the difference 

India ,as always, is a mess 

Isolation always helps stopping any disease. New Zealand is one of the most isolated countries in the world. They could afford implementing stricter measures from the onset, unlike countries in Europe.

I read this piece at Politico few days ago. I agree 100% with what is said there - "New Zealand is a community, not a society".

https://www.politico.eu/article/kiwis-vs-coronavirus-new-zealand-covid19-restrictions-rules/

Yeah, Alpine Worlds in March after the Olympics is just a very bad idea. It's the same nonsense as having figure skating Worlds after the Olympics every time. Several Olympic medallists just doesn't bother to show up.

10 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Right, but being a “easier job” (which I would imagine is harder than being mayor of New York City) still doesn’t really translate to why we can have relatable, decent, good natured leaders.

Budget of New York is 86 billion USD, budget of New Zealand is 30 billion USD. This is a no-contest who has a tougher job, Cuomo or Ardern

New Zealand is the biggest dairy products exporter in the world. Dairy products combine for 53% of their income. As long as people around the world eat butter and drink milk, they will be very fine economically regardless of who's in charge - a decent person or not so decent

2 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Don’t quite see how population contributes to being a good leader, and all around decent person...

Smaller, isolated country like New Zealand is MUCH easier to govern than a powerhouse like USA. It's fairly obvious. Hell, being the Mayor of New York is a much tougher job than a New Zealand PM IMO.

4 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

This is how you know if your country sits in the Ring of Fire 

Ardern gives me life. She’s the best. Why can’t we all have a Jacinda?

Because New Zealand has a population of Brooklyn & Queens combined?  

Talk about a bad finish for the Hendrick team. First Byron causes a caution that robs Chase Elliott from winning and then Jimmie Johnson fails post-race tech and gets DQ from 2nd place. Keselowski won.

22 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

We don’t need Saudi oil. If we were smart, we’d invest in green/renewable energy (especially in areas like my town where 50-60% of my town already runs on solar energy). We’d then use our oils reserves in the North and make deals with Canada for natural gas. We’re moving towards an age where oil won’t be the king maker it once was.

You forgot to ask what OPEC countries think of this? Middle East oil market is just about the only thing that prevents China from becoming #1 economy in the world. This is high-stakes geopolitics we talk about. Green energy replacing crude oil will most likely lead into a global economical collapse. You replaced Saddam Hussein with ISIS which actually made matters worse IMO, imagine giving away the entire Middle East to the terrorists? If the Shah of Iran could have been ousted imagine what happens if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia falls. These countries have nothing but sand and crude oil. The green energy juice is not worth the squeeze. The rich will have to find another way to get richer - without running OPEC out of business.

30 minutes ago, OlympicsFan said:

I feel like we are back at the beginning. My point was that judging a countries response before the pandemic is over doesn’t make much sense. Sweden might have the highest fatality rate, but who is to say that it will stay that way? I also think you can’t just go by fatality rates and ignore the economic part. Let’s say country A goes into full lockdown, 100 people die, but the economy loses 100 billion dollars, which leads to cuts in the health care system and over the next 10 years 20000 people who could have been saved by a better health care system die. Country B (with the same population size and the same GDP) doesn’t go into lockdown, 10000 people die, but the economy only loses 10 billion dollars and therefore there aren’t any cuts in the health care system. Which country did a better job in your opinion? The problem is that humans overestimate immediate dangers while they underestimate future dangers, otherwise only few people would regularly smoke/drink alcohol/eat unhealthy food. The politicians had to react accordingly, because otherwise they would have been unelectable in the future. Sadly politicians in many countries nowadays do what is best for their chances of getting reelected and not what is best for the country in the long run, it is somewhat the same with CEO‘s. They get judged and paid based on the current performance of their company, not based on how ready for the future their company is.

You're asking the question I can't answer because I don't know what's more important for the Swedish government. If economy was more important than health since day one, their approach is perfect and mortality is something nobody should care about. However most other countries acted like health is more important than economy - even if that lasted 2-3 months - and now economy is valued above public health again.

56 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Actually, my research found that many Africans are open to the idea of economic aid, technological development, and democratic institutions. Even in a country like Mali that has been gripped by years of conflict, but sides still yearn for a peaceful democratic state that support everyone. 
 

The U.S would definitely need to change its strategy completely to give something like this a go. Plus, we’d have to have a country where both sides want it, or at least are open to the idea. Africans don’t want to embezzle their money. Their leaders do. My plan would undercut leaders that are not supporters of democratic, economic, and societal reform. 
 

We failed in Afghanistan and Iraq because we failed to solve any of the underlying problems that led to conflict in the first place. We just ran in, guns blazing, shooting poor Muslim kids. 
 

Africa is the most resource rich market in the world. They are also in need of much development. American companies could find real opportunities there, while also raising the standard of living for Africans. 
 

Saudi Arabia is an example of a country we shouldn’t be supporting. If we were smart, we’d work to build up our green energy deposits in the next decade, so that we could slowly wane off our need for Saudi oil. 

Nope, after the 1973 oil crisis USA has no choice but to support Saudi Arabia. You've lost the grip on Iran after the 1979 revolution and you can't risk losing grip on the most important oil country in the world. Funnily enough, United Arab Emirates have learned how to build their own empire without the obvious US support. Crude oil remains the single most-important merchandise in the world. Not even a progressive mind like you can change that

32 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

My proposed plan in the debate was that we’d offer West Africa Humanitarian and Development aid in place of military support. Research suggests that would curb terrorism, and we’d have social experts there to make sure the aid is distributed as planned. The French military would provide protection in the early days, and stomp out any remaining terrorists ground after a while. Thus the U.S gains new allies, a sphere of influence in Africa, and the French don’t lose as troops as I think they will under their current strategy in the area. It cost more to finance war, and my plan just reallocated the funds from our African military budget, to our African aid budget. This means that in theory, it would not cost anymore to aid West Africa than it does now under the current strategy of propping up dictators and shooting poor African kids.

 

Now, I’ve maintained that in recent times the U.S. is where science, research, and reason go to die. Therefore absolutely agree this will most likely never happen, but it is the best solution available. 

I seriously doubt Africa wants humanitarian & development aid from USA. They want hard dollars which they can embezzle right away. USA trying to impose democracy - with the help of CIA contractors no doubt - is straight from Robert Ludlum line of work. You didn't solve any problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and you want to stir the African pot? For what? It's better to focus on helping Saudi Arabia and the oil rescources from the Persian Gulf.

7 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

The research I did for me debate suggests that’s not entirely true. While some countries left on horrible (cough*Algeria*cough) with their colonizers, many still maintained a relationship with them afterwards. @Vic Liu is absolutely right about China’s strategy in the region. I suggested the U.S. adopt that strategy to win over West Africa in a recent debate I had. The reason America is so unpopular in Africa is that we come in, shoot a bunch of poor African kids, and then leave without helping restart the economy or set up a democratic system.

Yeah, Anthony Eden wanted to assassinate Nasser, I wonder much love Egypt has for Great Britain these days?   This is a dead duck, Americans have guilty consciousness over slavery and racial segregation, good luck in your country trying to show some muscle in Africa of all continents. Progressive forces which you supposedly represent would probably burn this idea alive. USA has failed in the Far & Middle East (aside from the creation of Israel) and had some flops in Latin America. They're not gonna do anything in Africa methinks.

59 minutes ago, OlympicsFan said:

What I find interesting is China‘s global strategy. How many wars did the US start to gain influence? China doesn’t need that, they „gained control“ over Africa without having to lead any wars.

European colonization of Africa ended for good in the 60s so China waltzed into a perfect situation. Nobody's gonna listen to Europe when it comes to solving African issues anymore given the colonial past

22 minutes ago, OlympicsFan said:

Ok, but when you judge someone‘s actions, it would maybe make sense to know what the goal is.

I quoted an article from Financial Times. They probably know better what's the goal of their articles to begin with. Mortality rate per capita is pure maths, not judgement Governments working to stop people from dying is common sense, not judgement either.

24 minutes ago, OlympicsFan said:

In Germany there are also tons of People From Poland/Romania doing those jobs. GB could decide that those jobs have to be done by unemployed people who would otherwise lose their benefits. Of course only if they are in the physical condition to do that. If you hire local people, you have to pay higher wages. I think Italy is discussing giving citizenship to illegal immigrants who are willing to do those jobs. Recently I also saw a documentary about illegal African immigrants in Almeria, Spain. They only earn 10 € or so a day. The question is what would happen to the prizes if those people would be payed minimum wage?

Cheap labour is the backbone of Merkel's pro-immigrant policy, period.

Poles immigrate to Germany and Netherlands to work in agriculture while Ukrainians immigrate to Poland to work in our agriculture And so it goes...

Just now, OlympicsFan said:

I think there is a difference ...

I think it is safe to say that those students are far more qualified than your normal immigrant, I am also not sure how long they plan to stay.

Someone will have to pick up those strawberries Brits are so proud of. Something tells me it's a job for those lousy immigrants - no Brit would do it for the money that's paid to do it. Agriculture is one economy branch in Western Europe that thrives on cheap labour from economically poorer countries.

12 minutes ago, OlympicsFan said:

1) Is the pandemic already over? If not, then maybe it would make sense to wait with judgement until it is over.
2) I think saving as many lives as possible is important for most governments, but I think you can‘t just look at the fatality rates, you also have to look at the economy.

I don't know what's more important for the Swedish government. It's not really my problem either.