Highgate

That's sad news. A very brave, honest and defiant man. He stands in stark contrast to Putin who will of course deny all knowledge of  his responsibility for Navalny's death. 
I guess the consequences for Putin will be next to nothing.  People didn't do anything when the Russian state tried to murder Navalny before, or put him in jail for no reason whatsoever...or transfer him a maximum security prison in the Artic circle and mistreat him there. So I assume nobody will or can do anything about it now.  What can Russian people do about it realistically? They don't have the option of not electing Putin in the upcoming election. 
 

I agree with like 99% of what you’re saying. Elon is a bit of a t***. And I think there’s definitely more than a bit of vanity about having a city called muskville on mars. Rather than saving the world. Even if that happens to be an accidental side effect. If it’s a vanity project, then at least it has some benefits to humanity rather than just a giant platinum statue or something. 
but the 1% I don’t agree with is that there is a small window of opportunity. And that’s just because I’m selfish and would love to see a man (or woman) land on mars in my lifetime. Clocks ticking. 

Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 
I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 
As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  
I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 

Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 
I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 
As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  
I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 

Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 
I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 
As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  
I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 

Well said. It's amazing that so many wannabe intellectuals refuse to acknowledge this. 
One thing is clear - to start a human colony on Mars would require huge amounts of adaptability, both physically and mentally. And yet those advocating for it don't even to seem to be able to cope with mild ridicule, or critical analysis
What is the melting point of a snowflake on Mars?

I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.
Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 
Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 
I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 
Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 
 
 
 

I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.
Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 
Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 
I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 
Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 
 
 
 

I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.
Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 
Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 
I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 
Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 
 
 
 

I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.
Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 
Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 
I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 
Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 
 
 
 

Out there in the internet cesspits, if you’re not Pro Putin, you’re Pro America.
Neither and somewhere in the middle for me is the right place to kick back and set out my deckchair.
Imagine if all the money spent fighting wars globally was put to better use, what a world we would live in.

Except it wasn't even a remotely accurate history of Russia.  Just Russian history as Putin would like it to be.  

For anyone that pays attention to what Putin has said in the past there was nothing much new here, same old misinterpretation of history, as always. But what do you expect from a Dugin disciple.
The only new stuff of note was:
- As @Crewton mentioned, he invited Hungary and surrounding countries to take parts of Ukraine that they would like/deem to be theirs. He obviously didn’t mention giving Kalliningrad back to Germany (wonder why?)
- Ukraine is a fake country and Ukrainians are Russians in denial
- Maidan was a fake revolution and the reality was the CIA overthrew the Ukrainian government.
- Clinton and Bush said Russia could join NATO but the CIA vetoed it. He glossed over the obvious reasons why Russia could never be accepted in its current form.
- Seemed a big fan of Bush, a fellow imperialist who’s caused chaos in the Middle East. 
- He said the retreat from Kyiv was a gesture of goodwill not them getting beaten back.
- Not sure why western governments think he’s a nuclear threat. Obviously not aware of members of his own regime threatening to nuke anyone they dislike
- he took the pee out of Carlson for being rejected by the CIA when he was young.
- He’s afraid of genetically enhanced superhumans
Thats about it really off the top of my head.
Obviously there was lots of Nazi references, plenty of we the good guys,  etc. but that’s standard fare with him for those that pay attention.
Shame he wasn’t asked about all those kids he’s kidnapped. 
The one thing I’ll credit Carlson with was asking about Evan Gershkovich. Putin fobbed him off with a non answer and changed the subject

Agreed, but while we shake our heads at Russia and remark at how unrepresentative their leadership is, I'm mindful that right here on our own doorsteps we've allowed a bunch of crooks to line their pockets with Treasury money while sneering at the great unwashed. Not comparable to Putin of course, but salient to the point you make about the need for states to maintain a veneer of democracy nonetheless. IMO, we do that too.

Vlad quite likes to run against a few carefully selected and approved candidates... He probably wouldn't mind running against Nadezhdin if he was going to remain a quiet and insignificant figure. That would have made is victory in the 'election' more impressive and he could say that he defeated the anti-war candidate at the ballot box.  He could then claim that his war has the full backing of the Russian electorate. For some reason this fig leaf of democratic legitimacy still seems to matter to Putin.  
However, it seems as though Nadezhdin had the potential to be too noisy and gain too much support, so they've had to disqualify him on laughably spurious grounds. Hopefully he won't end up in an Arctic jail like Navalny.  

It's not just that Tucker Carlson isn't a good journalist, he is a truly appalling...actually I hesitate to use the term journalist...TV personality or whatever he is.  
This is a man who helped cost his own employers, Fox News, nearly $800million dollars, for constantly repeating false conspiracies about Dominion voting machines. Lies that's his own text messages proved that he didn't believe.  Carlson was singled out in particular in the lawsuit for his 'knowing and reckless disregard of the truth'. 
Surely, nobody could listen to Carlson describe the Jan 6th as peaceful protests and consider him a journalist of any standing. In fact, the Kremlin have chosen Putin's interviewer well as Tucker has repeatedly dismissed criticisms of Putin and has often parroted Kremlin propaganda in relation to the invasion of Ukraine.  Given that the interviewee is an inveterate liar himself, whose notion of the truth is merely what serves his and Russia's interest (or more correctly what he thinks is in Russia's interest), I really don't think we will learn much of value from this dialogue. 
I'm not against the interview in principle or the broadcasting of it, but anyone hoping that Carlson interviewing Putin will restore journalistic standards will be disappointed to say the least. 
 

Yeah, if Nadezhdins' support were to build and become seen in public....it could have been very embarrassing for Putin.  No wonder they found a way to disqualify him.  
His manifesto states that he is  “a principled opponent of the policies of the current president." and is against “unjustified use of military force against other countries” and is for “cooperation with Western countries.”  A former ally of Nemtsov too. 
What a shame that guy isn't the president of Russia.  

Yeah, if Nadezhdins' support were to build and become seen in public....it could have been very embarrassing for Putin.  No wonder they found a way to disqualify him.  
His manifesto states that he is  “a principled opponent of the policies of the current president." and is against “unjustified use of military force against other countries” and is for “cooperation with Western countries.”  A former ally of Nemtsov too. 
What a shame that guy isn't the president of Russia.  

Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. He was a presenter on an entertainment show. Remember always, Fox News told so many lies they had to self classify as entertainment instead of news. 

You spent so long on that reply that you totally forgot to mention about Musk agreeing that the deep state are turns kids in LBGTQ and that the Dems have started a civil war!
It worked though, the thread then moved into a valid debate about who should or shouldn't be interviewed.  
I loved this bit though: "Carlson has been by far the most watched political commentator in America, yet lost his voice when dumped by the legacy media."
He was dumped by Fox News! About the same time they paid out millions to the voting company whom they lied about fixing the election. And Carlson now interviews Putin on a platform ran by a lunactic who laughably thinks the deep state is turning kids gay and who also runs a communications network that can impact on warfare between two European countries!
It's been a bad couple of years to have Musk as your hero. What would he have to do for you to even slightly question your undying support of him? Call a guy who rescues kids from a cave a child abuser? Promote wild, unsubstaniated theories that politician's families attacked at home were just the victims of spurned gay lovers, not the victims of lunatics beliving the constant stream of garbage pumped out by the likes of Fox News/Musk?
 

It's not just that Tucker Carlson isn't a good journalist, he is a truly appalling...actually I hesitate to use the term journalist...TV personality or whatever he is.  
This is a man who helped cost his own employers, Fox News, nearly $800million dollars, for constantly repeating false conspiracies about Dominion voting machines. Lies that's his own text messages proved that he didn't believe.  Carlson was singled out in particular in the lawsuit for his 'knowing and reckless disregard of the truth'. 
Surely, nobody could listen to Carlson describe the Jan 6th as peaceful protests and consider him a journalist of any standing. In fact, the Kremlin have chosen Putin's interviewer well as Tucker has repeatedly dismissed criticisms of Putin and has often parroted Kremlin propaganda in relation to the invasion of Ukraine.  Given that the interviewee is an inveterate liar himself, whose notion of the truth is merely what serves his and Russia's interest (or more correctly what he thinks is in Russia's interest), I really don't think we will learn much of value from this dialogue. 
I'm not against the interview in principle or the broadcasting of it, but anyone hoping that Carlson interviewing Putin will restore journalistic standards will be disappointed to say the least. 
 

It's not just that Tucker Carlson isn't a good journalist, he is a truly appalling...actually I hesitate to use the term journalist...TV personality or whatever he is.  
This is a man who helped cost his own employers, Fox News, nearly $800million dollars, for constantly repeating false conspiracies about Dominion voting machines. Lies that's his own text messages proved that he didn't believe.  Carlson was singled out in particular in the lawsuit for his 'knowing and reckless disregard of the truth'. 
Surely, nobody could listen to Carlson describe the Jan 6th as peaceful protests and consider him a journalist of any standing. In fact, the Kremlin have chosen Putin's interviewer well as Tucker has repeatedly dismissed criticisms of Putin and has often parroted Kremlin propaganda in relation to the invasion of Ukraine.  Given that the interviewee is an inveterate liar himself, whose notion of the truth is merely what serves his and Russia's interest (or more correctly what he thinks is in Russia's interest), I really don't think we will learn much of value from this dialogue. 
I'm not against the interview in principle or the broadcasting of it, but anyone hoping that Carlson interviewing Putin will restore journalistic standards will be disappointed to say the least. 
 

It seems though that Biden's blatant pro Israel bias might hurt him in the upcoming election.  
Not that the other option will be any better for the Palestinians mind.... 
You'd have to wonder what the situation in Israel/Palestine would be now, if the US had been an honest unbiased influence throughout the decades rather than always staunchly pro Israel, and blocking whatever the UN was trying to accomplish in the region. 
The sad truth is, even as many of the younger generation in the US are now questioning the US's automatic reflexive support for Israel against the Palestinians, both of their next Presidential candidates are among the most pro-Israeli presidents there has ever been in the White House.  

Totally agree mate , but there was some on here questioning his effort for the rest of the season after his move was announced