World News

This is what still blows me away.

A fucking actor is doing a better job running a country specifically during wartime than a typical politician.

It's fuckin embarrassing to every single person on this planet who's dealing with stupid/corrupt/inept politicians who would sell their constituents for fuckin toilet paper.

In theory the idea is great. Unfortunately in reality people in those positions are fucking greedy and will throw citizens under the bus to get a few extra bucks. In South Africa we see the ruling party ANC politicians who earn decent money but they still can't keep their fucking greasy hands out of the cookie jar. It's pretty fucking disgusting since their is still so much poverty in the country but they will rather steal to enrich themselves.

Agreed. We should (in the US) pay really high salaries to government officials, especially executive office/legislators/judges. Provide huge benefits like paid education and lifetime medical coverage for children and spouses (even if you retire), and a one time home purchase up to a certain amount in any location on retirement. It's yours and if you sell it, the income is yours too. Pension equivalent to salary, which is raised whenever it's increased for active government officials, and continues for your spouse after you die.

But in return, you and your spouse must fully divest yourself of any investments of any kind. You must sell any properties you own beyond a home in your constituent state. A home in DC will be provided, if applicable. Your spouse also may not have investments or own properties. Your adult children may have investments if they're managed by a blind trust.

After you retire, or "age out" at the current full social security age, or at the end of your assigned term after reaching that age, you may not ever hold another job ever again. You may not receive income in any form other than what is paid to you by the pension fund. You (and your spouse) may not own investments of any kind.

Don't like it? Cool, don't run for office.

This is close to reasonable. But the argument politicians shouldn't be paid well is bad. If you can't earn a good income as a politician, then the only people that can be politicians are those that are already wealthy.

A working class person (or background) that can do well as a minister will struggle to put their family in the position of earning a reduced salary compared to a job in the private sector that will pay them more.

A good example of this problem is Rishi Sunak. His wife is a billionaire. He doesn't need a salary and PM. He has extended internal combustion engine sales deadline, supported the war in Gaza as soon as a Gaza permit for BP was announced and spitefully stopped the expansion of high speed rail by selling off the land purchased for it. All these actions are in direct support of BP a company his wife directly benefits from.

It would be much better if our politicians earned their income through their salary. We have a dearth of talent due to low pay and high stress roles, only those that are swindling millions out of it are willing to endure.

…and that is okay. He is still doing an incredible job and is an incredible public figure.

Nobody is perfect, nor do they have to be.

True.

For example Churchill: great wartime PM, but also very much an anti-worker free market believing imperialist who actively fought against both independence for and immigration from the British colonies. People tend to only remember the first part, though.

Yeah we are? Most normal people don't have huge skeletons in their closet.

Here's his approval rating over time that reflects this point perfectly. He's supported in his actions during the war way more than he was as a politician, he was actually doing pretty badly before the war in his approvals. Interested to see how the prolonged conflict affects this, and what the regional differences are.

Ey mate, shitters clogged

Very much this.

The suffix at the end of that last name is also causing some trouble:

• In Ukrainian, it's Зеленський (note the "ь", a silent letter supposed to soften the consonant before itself)
• In Russian, it's Зеленский (no "ь", the "н" is not soft)
• In Polish, it's Zełenski (no "й" or anything similar, resulting in a different pronunciation again)

Now compare it to the last name of a Polish author: Сапковський (Ukrainian), Сапковский (Russian), Sapkowski (Polish).

Ukrainians, Russians, and Poles all have examples of last names like these, but the rules of our languages dictate that we handle them differently, even in terms of spelling and pronunciation; for people not speaking a Slavic language naturally, it understandably is a nightmare, as neither spelling is objectively the right one in terms of linguistics.

For now, it's probably best to either go with one of the following:

• Zelensky or Zelenski, akin to Polish equivalent spelling of similar last names
• Zelenskyy, as seems to be the more or less official or judicial spelling of this Ukrainian last name

As messy as it seems, I believe it's going to stay the same. Romanization of the Russian language is already an equally messy phenomenon despite multiple efforts to standardize the process, yet it only resulted in several ways of tackling the difficult cases, which is of very little help; Ukrainian seems to be an even more complicated case for romanization as it has some features that would either require intricate rules to create accurate spellings, or make greater use of diacritics.

I'm Australian and we don't pronounce it "tay-let"

That sounds like someone trying to badly imitate Australian accents but having the pronunciation very wrong

I don't know how you managed to butcher it so badly

All my life I have pronounced it "toy-let" and I grew up in Australia

"tay-let" sounds like some weird portmanteau with "taylor" and "let"