Nice. Mind sharing the wallpaper?

Edit: never mind. Found it.

Again, while there are definitely some parallels between Putin's annexation of Crimea and Hitler's of the Sudetenland, there are also plenty of differences that make a direct comparison complicated and not altogether helpful. Hitler's goals were obviously more wide-ranging, proactive, and expansionist, whereas Putin's were much more localized and reactive to a perceived threat. A diplomatic solution didn't work with Hitler but it might have for Putin.

I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want to fight to the bitter end, but how much longer will that take? How many more lives will be lost? Is a military victory even likely?

With Ukraine recently being given access to long-range US missiles with which they have conducted strikes within Russian territory, the war seems to be gradually escalating with neither side willing to back down.

NO BUTS. That's IT. Russia is IN THE WRONG.

No argument from me. I wasn't condoning the Russian invasion so much as explaining what Russia's grievances were.

How do you ensure a tyrant doesn't regroup under a ceasefire and strike again after he gained a prize?

It was not Putin's intention to stay in Ukraine for long and the war has proven to be very costly. What he really wanted was to show the world that he would stand up to what he saw as the bullying of NATO, the EU, and the US.

A diplomatic solution that would have given Putin a chance to save face while also ensuring a ceasefire would have likely been enough for him, since he knew that Russia didn't have the military strength to beat NATO and Euro forces in an outright ground war. This, incidentally, is why I don't buy the direct comparison to Hitler, who actually had both the will and the military / economic might to take over Europe.

As to the very reasonable question of how: One suggestion I remember liking the sound of was the idea to establish a de-militarized zone along the Russian-Ukrainian border in the contested Donetsk-Luhansk region under the joint supervision of Kiyv, Moscow and the European Union.

Either way, I'm not saying it would have definitely worked out, but it seemed to me that not enough effort was given to trying to find a relatively peaceful alternative to a war that was always going to last years and costs tens of thousands of lives.

1. I explicitly said the Russian invasion was not justified

2. Propaganda is often a kernel of truth wrapped in a lie. That's true of US & EU propaganda as well.

Yup, this pretty much sums it up.

To add, the vast majority of the antisemitism complaints involved other Labour ministers liking and posting anti-Israel Tweets that were consider too extreme. These ranged from ones that "crossed the line" of criticism against Israeli policy and the Israel lobby in the UK (some of which you can read in the report on pages 27-30) to ones that allegedly blamed Jewish members of the Labour party for making false complaints, or even tried to dimish the Holocaust (although I can't find the exact details of those).

Either way, none of the complaints involved Corbyn himself but his reputation was tarnished and it made him an easy target for his opponents.

Certain parts of the media/political establishment certainly tried to paint him that way, but really he was only guilty of not being hawkish enough on Russia.

He was always in favor of a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict instead of perpetuating an endless war.

There is no rule that says the universe must make sense to human beings. In fact the more we learn about it - subatomic particles, quantum mechanics, the multiverse, etc. the stranger it becomes and the less it appears to operate in ways that are intuitive to our primitive primate brains.

Hell, even space and time might not be fundamental properties, and could themselves be abstractions which emerge from an even deeper underlying reality...

All of which is to say your list should have an extra option:

D. Who The Fuck Knows?

It's a big deal because the Conservatives have been in power for the last 14 years and everyone is sick of the sight of them. Current projections show that this may be their worst showing ever.

Their main rivals, Labour, are going to dominate on a centrist platform, even though they are not promising much in the way of reform or change.

The biggest downside is that the Trumpish Reform party are looking like they'll do quite well with xenophobic, right-wing, ex-Conservatives.

Labour is expected to win 410 seats, with the Conservatives on 131

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn09xn9je7lt

I think the phrase "landslide" is going to be putting it mildly.

As someone married to a JW and who is friends with several others, I will say this: like any group of people, they can be a mixed bag. Some are more closeted and "in the truth" whereas others are more outgoing and "worldly".

One the things that I actually admire about them (the individuals, mind you, not the Watchtower organization) is that they really seem to try and live by the teachings of the Bible and study it frequently. Much more so than, say, your average evangelical Protestant.

As someone who is mostly agnostic, those who belive that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence belong in psychotherapy.

This position is a straw man. Atheists generally do not argue that God categorically does not exist. Instead, we usually say that we don't believe in God because there is insufficient evidence. Much like the proverbial invisible unicorn in your backyard - since there is no evidence that it exists, there is no reason for it to affect how we go about our daily lives.

When it comes to whether you're agnostic or atheist, I think it helps to answer the following question on a scale of 0 - 10: How confident are you that God exists? If you say around 5, then you're agnostic. If you say around 1 or 2, then you're an atheist.

Because

• None of the above legally prevent him from running.
• Republican voters will still vote for him en masse.

It's that simple.