Posts by Kyle Lopez2

wiredfalcon2 said:But honey, whatever I write to you doesn't actually change anything for you. Like, who cares if a standard nuclear plant takes 10-15 years to build with massive upfront costs, while an average wind farm takes 2-3, if I'm just some "clown"? Who cares if the average kWh ends up being more expensive from nuclear than from wind, when wind farms are basically the biggest scam ever? Who cares that people are dumping millions into R&D for floating wind turbines because once the water hits 60 meters, offshore becomes impossible—even though that's where the best winds are—if I'm just "rambling"? Not that I'm against nuclear energy or think it's an either-or situation. What's even the point of us talking when you've got this smug attitude that I don't grasp the difference between hydro, nuclear, or wind? Plus, you're talking from the perspective of Norway, which is sitting on fossil fuel goldmines and doesn't need Russian gas or oil. Compare that to the EU, where half their energy comes from Russia and they can't just pivot to some local gas in Spain or Portugal, so now we're supposed to squeeze a bit more out of it just to screw over Putin. Of course, Norway's energy independence regarding fossil fuels only counts if we pretend climate change isn't happening and act like we can just burn stuff for the next 500 years like nothing's wrong. Everyone knows renewables are limited, which means they're inherently unstable. That's why they're trying to find other sources on European soil to fill the gaps when things get dicey—whether that's storing it in hydrogen, batteries, or tapping into geothermal—or building a pan-European power grid so when the wind stops blowing in the North Sea, we're hooked up to solar in Mediterranean countries. None of that is easy to fix, but the alternative is either sucking up to Putin or sucking up to the Qataris or Saudi Arabia. Translation: there is no alternative.

I distinctly remember you telling me once that you wouldn't bother replying to someone who tries to talk down to you in a post.🤣

coastalheron12 said:When you finally answer me—and hey, feel free to ask those old-timers from the former ExxonMobil, now rebranded with that sexy inclusive name Equinor, for their take—on what the actual fundamental difference is between hydro or nuclear plants on one side versus some pathetic little wind turbine on the other... once we establish that knowledge, then maybe we can start demystifying this whole "we're warming ourselves by the breeze" nonsense.

🍿 Honestly, I’d love to see your sources and read up on this myself, mostly because I’m a total skeptic when it comes to eco-politics.

fadedridge903 said:When a people's culture and language are stripped away, that's where your fascism and Nazism arguments start to apply. I'm looking at this primarily through the lens of geopolitics.

According to Western media, Sputnik and RT are the true bastions of liberty.
I used to read Advance back when I was a kid.

No worries at all, man, but if that's your logic, I'm struggling to see how you've stayed on the side of the Russian Federation for the last twenty years.😵 In my book, there hasn't been a more Nazi-aligned state in the world over the last two decades, maybe with the exception of the People's Republic of China.

The other paradox here is how you've suddenly narrowed down "Nazism" and "fascism" to things that barely touch those actual ideologies, while simultaneously labeling almost every major superpower from the 20th century as Nazi.😵

fadedridge903 said:There’s no trolling going on here; all these questions are perfectly valid.
The presence of Nazism isn't just media propaganda. The simple fact that you can greet a Ukrainian with "Slava Ukraini" while you certainly couldn't greet an American with "for Za Dom Spremni" tells you everything you need to know about how Nazism is tolerated in Ukraine.

I don't see how that's relevant. Fascism and Nazism didn't share the same views on most things, nor did their allies share the same goals or stances as the Nazis themselves.

To draw a parallel, could you really take the sins of racism or the war crimes committed by specific democratic nations and pin them on all democracies everywhere? Or even look at what was left of anti-fascism in communist-controlled parts of Europe when they were busy carrying out political class liquidations across the continent?

Ultimately, what foundation does Ukraine actually have for statehood, given that almost their entire history consists of being suppressed by the Russian Empire for 300 years, aside from some Cossack uprisings and cooperation with anti-Russian forces?

Calling out a country for ethnic persecution and attempted industrial genocide just because of certain symbols or similarities to nationalist rebels fighting against the USSR during World War II feels dishonest—honestly, it feels morally bankrupt. Isn't that just more propaganda designed to demonize someone and pave the way for further slaughter and revenge?

Justin James10 said:Regardless of all that mindless propaganda being pushed around, it’s pretty obvious why Azov makes such an easy target for them. It really comes down to those fucking runes in their emblem and a handful of idiots within the ranks who make stupid outbursts or wear questionable patches. Honestly, people like that do nothing but cause damage.

If it weren't for them, his opponents would just find some other Nazi scapegoat or whatever else they need to fuel their narrative; meanwhile, he’d just be crushing the morale of his own people by demanding this impossible level of purity.

The reality is that nobody actually cares, and as long as they're fighting the same enemies, the whole country can be labeled whatever they want—just like how the entire West was perfectly fine cooperating with the USSR whenever it suited their interests.

Steven Fox37 said:Why would he bother starting a fire in the Middle East? What's in it for him? If he manages to grab what he wants right now—essentially creating a buffer zone between Russia and NATO—he can retire peacefully as the man who secured Russia's survival and future. He could even stage an internal coup where some young "liberal" takes over, giving the West a perfect cover story to start warming up relations with a new, "rational" Russia. Of course, once territory is seized, it stays seized. No guarantees there.

All those assumptions about low troop numbers and bad logistics rely on the idea that Western media reports are gospel and that the West actually understands Russian military doctrine. I’m not suggesting everything on X or Twitter is a total fabrication—like we're living in a movie like *Wag the Dog*—but rather, shouldn't we ask if these losses were factored into the planning? Because if they accounted for them and built in redundancies, then maybe it isn't such a massive problem after all.
Remember how at the start, everyone was talking about the "Ukrainian spirit" in Kyiv, air superiority, paratrooper victories, blah blah blah? And how did that turn out? The Russians have air dominance in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are basically traveling around Europe begging for any plane they can get.

Of course, everything I'm saying might be complete nonsense. I didn't even think this whole thing would happen; I thought he was just rattling off weapons to get better leverage during negotiations or something.

That's a bit like telling me that getting a red card is some kind of football doctrine.🤣

The talk about low troop counts exists because there simply aren't enough soldiers to cover such a massive area, especially when you're attempting encirclements. A stronger opponent could easily exploit that by cutting through lines or slipping into the rear to wreck supply chains without much trouble.

Just because Ukraine is pumping out propaganda doesn't mean everyone else is blind to a Russian fail. Running out of fuel isn't a doctrine.🤣

Elizabeth Mendoza said:I think someone might have touched on this already, but what if the Americans just decided to stop playing defense? Imagine if they just sent up a squadron of jets to intercept that slow-moving convoy mid-flight, blew everything out of the sky, and then touched back down at their bases.

Has a single plane actually taken off from either side yet?

Well, you've got Russian long-range air defense covering them from above,
and then there's the medium and short-range Russian air defense sitting right there within the convoy if they try to strike from a lower altitude.

The Russians probably face similar hurdles; they likely don't want to risk their jets, especially since everything is probably so uncoordinated right now that they might be terrified of their own defenses accidentally taking down their own planes in the chaos. I'm sure there are plenty of tactical military reasons on both sides keeping things quiet.

Drones, on their own merit, probably have a much smaller radar profile, which might let them sneak around those border areas where the fighting is happening. At least, that's my best guess.

Steven Fox37 said:Don't sweat it. If things don't pan out, they'll just flip the script and keep moving. It's the same old story, right? Just a couple of days ago, everyone was claiming the Russians were on the brink of collapse because they’d lost 8, 9, or 10 thousand men, their tanks and trucks were either stuck in the mud or rusted out, and their soldiers were nothing but a bunch of kids. And now? Suddenly, the narrative changes completely.

But isn't the underlying issue still there? The Russians might be making headway, but they remain incredibly vulnerable, facing chronic manpower shortages and terrible logistics. No one would be surprised if they managed to pull off a win, but honestly, no one would be shocked if they just fell apart—running out of fuel and ammo and being forced into a retreat because of internal chaos.

Adam Williams2 said:To me, this just feels surreal. I mean, you're prepping for war and then you run out of gas? It's kind of hard to believe news like this. I guess I don't know if it's fake or not, but if it's true, the Russians are acting even more foolish than a bunch of drunk rebels.

They aren't necessarily stupid; it's more about the actual cost of war versus what they originally expected.

It's pretty obvious they were banking on a total surrender within a few days. Now that they have to commit even more resources, they simply don't have them—especially when you factor in that they'll likely lose a significant portion of those assets during the conflict itself.

ironranger67 said:Honestly, that just goes to show that even the foreign generals don't actually know much more than the average person out there. They massively overstated their strength and power, assuming they could just wield it without any real limits—which is probably why they ended up pulling numbers like ten thousand casualties out of thin air.

Well, they basically based all those projections on intel being leaked by Russia, and now it turns out Russia hasn't even made a dent in modernizing anything. They're pretty much stuck in the same spot they were ten years ago during the war in Georgia.

Nobody was necessarily expecting the Ratnik project or the Armata to be a massive success, but people did expect them to at least roll out decent optics and night-vision gear. Instead, Russia is fighting like it's still 1980.😁

Justin James10 said:Oh sure, because an "energy transition" that involves shutting down nuclear plants and becoming even more dependent on Russian gas—since apparently wind turbines are useless—is such a brilliant idea. 🙏 What a truly cunning plan from the black widow. 🙏

Having unity regarding security would certainly be a great thing, wouldn't it? But right now, it mostly feels like people just playing around and engaging in virtue signaling on social media. As far as I can tell, these economic sanctions are really nothing more than half-measures.

Personally, I’d much rather vote to become the 51st State of America than join up with the bureaucrats in the Union.

Aligning with them feels a lot like when we were under the Habsburgs. They were too weak to protect us when we needed defense against the Turks, yet they kept losing territory in Swabia and fighting wars up North, only to turn around and try to force Germanization on us later... There's nothing to it—being part of an empire that offers zero benefits from expansion and exists solely to push Europeanization, assimilation, and centralization onto smaller nations that joined voluntarily.

I'll wait for Hans and Jean to show us the actual "benefits" of the Eurofederation and their struggle for dominance; personally, I'd rather just stick to trade agreements.☕

cosmicmoose2 said:What racing line? Max completely missed the track.
It wasn't a lockup, he just took a path that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual circuit. He did it on purpose.
Just look at how he entered that corner during qualifying versus how he did it on lap 48. It's obvious.

The way Mario compares collisions🤔 makes Copse look like an unpredictable accident, when this was actually an intentional hit.

That’s just not true. When you try to overtake at Copse like Lewis did, there's an 80% chance you're going to collide.

What Max did was a dive. If the area off-track were gravel, Max wouldn't have gone wide; he would have stayed on the brakes longer and Lewis would have been shut out.

Max went off-track specifically so he wouldn't ruin his floor on those white curbs behind the red and white ones, and to stop Lewis from overtaking him off-track since he would have had to stay off the throttle for too long.

Of course the whole move was intentional—that's how a dive works. You take the position on the track and use your car to block the opponent's line, forcing them toward the edge.

But here is what isn't true.
In the whole sequence, Lewis didn't avoid a collision because there wasn't really a collision to avoid. By the time he hits the apex, he's already half a car behind Max, unless he's trying to pull a Michael Schumacher '97 and smash into Max halfway.

Throughout the whole thing, Max didn't cause a collision, nor did he intend to cause one, and he certainly wasn't close to causing one. This was just a standard dive.

The only controversial part is leaving the track while defending, not all this nonsense people are typing. He intentionally pushed Lewis; he wanted the contact and all that drama. Even if we assume he did push him intentionally, we aren't stupid enough to think that if you take the racing line, you won't push whoever is hugging the outside of the track right off the circuit.🤣

Rebecca Parker said:It’s because Max didn't brake in time—or hard enough—which is why he drifted out to the outside of the turn. Honestly, it looked like he didn't even turn the wheel as much as he could have. Meanwhile, Lewis braked early at Silverstone (actually, he should have braked even earlier, which makes him mostly responsible for the collision), so what started as them being side-by-side turned into Max being in front, cutting off the line when he swung toward Lewis. He still had room on the outside! If he had driven like Lewis did in Brazil—backing off and giving space—they both would have made the corner. Silverstone was on both of them (though Lewis carries more weight there, isn't that how the stewards mostly ruled?), but Brazil? That's entirely on Max. He should have been punished.

😵 You're wrong; you can definitely dive in at Turn 4 without an issue. Honestly, people dive in all the time with a three-car-length gap behind them.

Max was still parallel with Lewis entering the corner (front-to-back). Just look at races from previous years and you'll see this is a situation where people overtake without any trouble.

It wasn't even "too hot," because he's already half a car length ahead before the apex and adds more throttle. The guy just took an early apex and drove the racing line, and by that early apex, he's already half a car ahead. If you don't believe me, look at Austria 2019. He went off because of the asphalt on the other side and those curb strips; if he'd stayed on track, those curbs would have caught under the car. Plus, naturally, he would have had to be a bit later on the gas, otherwise Lewis would have overtaken him off-track.

If there were gravel on the outside, neither Max nor Lewis would have gone off the track, and that’s the problem with modern circuits. You see it again this year with Fernando Alonso and Kimi Räikkönen, where Räikkönen pushed Alonso completely off the track after following him along the racing line.

-------------Silverstone-------------

If you look at it from another angle, I just don't get it. Mostly the fault lies with🤦 Max not leaving enough room.🤔



Or that Lewis and Rosberg didn't leave enough room. How much room is even enough? If we want to take things to an absurd extreme. And I'm not even comparing it to a corner configuration where Copse isn't a passing zone.

It would be even better if they brought up those silly arguments about how parallel they were in the braking zone.🤔 Give me a break. In Hamilton-Raikkonen 2007, Hamilton-Rosberg 2014, and Hamilton-Vettel 2017, he was a couple of car lengths behind when he attacked, so he was in front by the apex and took the corner/racing line. In the end, Rosberg retaliated in USA 2015 when he overtook him on track and also pulled a dive.

Rebecca Parker said:If he walked away with points after a race like that, I can't say I'm surprised. At least he drove the best he could. There was definitely a chance someone would have slammed right into Max Verstappen 😁, but that didn't happen because they decided to just hand him free points—just like how everything seems to go his way so many times this season. Trying to spin this to favor Lewis Hamilton is honestly laughable 🙄

edit: Great breakdown of the incident. If Lewis had veered into Max Verstappen at the 4:20 mark, just like when Max Verstappen hit him at Silverstone, they both would've ended up in the gravel just like last time. I really hope Max Verstappen gets punished retroactively.

🤦 You look at a shot from the start of the 120m braking zone and claim Lewis turned in 🤦turned in where? 🤔He definitely wasn't turning into a corner when his steering wheel only starts rotating 40m before the turn. 😵

You're honestly just picking on him now.

wiredseal7 said:There’s an example right here—kind of like that one from a month ago (around the 0:25 mark):

Principled Toto wasn't exactly whining and crying like he is now—not even close.

Looking back at that, I honestly can't help but think what an idiot Sergio Perez was being.🤦 Lewis would have just slammed the brakes at the first corner, taken an early apex, or maybe missed it by a meter or two just to get half a car length advantage, then floored it and pushed Perez toward the blue line—but he definitely wouldn't have let him dive down the outside.🤣

Martin Brundle would have probably just laughed it off, and they'd call it "lingering on the racing line," while later during the analysis, Rosberg would just chuckle and say you can't force Lewis into a gap on the outside.🤣.....

It’s not like we haven't seen this movie before.

Here’s another interesting one. Mexico City 19 when Lewis pushed Max Verstappen and himself onto the grass without getting any penalty at all. 🤣

mellowtiger83 said:Lewis didn't knock anyone off the track in the United Kingdom; he was on his racing line WITHIN THE TRACK, and Max essentially took himself out by steering into the space occupied by the car. If he hadn't had the advantage leading up to the next corner—which is a left, his inside line—it would have been different.
We are talking about speeds well over 200km/h here, and if you actually intend to convince me that Lewis intentionally forced Max off at that velocity, then we really have nothing left to discuss.
In Brazil, Max's intention is obvious, INTENTIONAL in all caps.

Just because you're a moderator doesn't mean you can delete my posts, especially since you know exactly what I wrote.

If this forum doesn't allow insults based on nationality, race, or whatever else, why are you doing it right in the middle of a Catholic nation?

Rosberg was also out in Austria back in '16, stuck on his own line.🤣 Yuki Tsunoda was also right at the apex when he clipped half of Lance Stroll's car. Honestly, you just have to dive in, hit an early apex, and floor it—make Stroll be the one to dodge you.🤣



You’re saying if Max hadn't taken himself out, he would have had the advantage. 🤦 Remind us again about how Charles Leclerc managed to stay on track and avoid taking himself out. 🤔

mellowtiger83 said:Lewis didn't knock anyone off the track in the United Kingdom; he was on his racing line WITHIN THE TRACK, and Max essentially took himself out by steering into the space occupied by the car. If he hadn't had the advantage leading up to the next corner—which is a left, his inside line—it would have been different.
We are talking about speeds well over 200km/h here, and if you actually intend to convince me that Lewis intentionally forced Max off at that velocity, then we really have nothing left to discuss.
In Brazil, Max's intention is obvious, INTENTIONAL in all caps.

Just because you're a moderator doesn't mean you can delete my posts, especially since you know exactly what I wrote.

If this forum doesn't allow insults based on nationality, race, or whatever else, why are you doing it right in the middle of a Catholic nation?

If you sat down in a meeting with any group of professional drivers and showed them footage of Lewis Hamilton, then asked if he could realistically overtake Max Verstappen in Copse corner—considering there isn't even a braking zone there—you'd get some pretty interesting reactions. The answer is no. There isn't a braking zone there, so you can't make up enough ground to get ahead at the apex just so you can "hit the racing line."

If you still haven't realized after thirty years behind the wheel that you're eventually going to cause an accident—and more importantly, have a rough idea of what kind of wreck that might be—then you’re honestly just being reckless.

mellowtiger83 said:Lewis didn't knock anyone off the track in the United Kingdom; he was on his racing line WITHIN THE TRACK, and Max essentially took himself out by steering into the space occupied by the car. If he hadn't had the advantage leading up to the next corner—which is a left, his inside line—it would have been different.
We are talking about speeds well over 200km/h here, and if you actually intend to convince me that Lewis intentionally forced Max off at that velocity, then we really have nothing left to discuss.
In Brazil, Max's intention is obvious, INTENTIONAL in all caps.

Just because you're a moderator doesn't mean you can delete my posts, especially since you know exactly what I wrote.

If this forum doesn't allow insults based on nationality, race, or whatever else, why are you doing it right in the middle of a Catholic nation?

The whole idea behind a dive is just to hit that racing line right at the apex and carry that momentum all the way through the turn. Honestly, fuck yeah. That’s been the standard for fifty years.

James Collins said:Nobody is even saying that. The actual point—which you guys are either totally ignoring or just twisting around—is that nobody was supposed to get points for that race at all.
It’s like two football teams head out for warmups, the weather is right on the edge of being unplayable, things get worse mid-way through, and then the ref and the crew decide it’s too risky and call the whole thing off after a few minutes. Then later, they announce the favorite gets 1.5 points (half a win) and the underdog gets 0.5 (half a draw).
Sounds stupid, right? Would the favorite have won? Who knows.
It’s just plain dumb to hand out points when the game didn't even happen.
Same goes for giving points for a race that wasn't actually driven.
Honestly, I don't care if Lewis is better, Max is better, or if a literal saint is better. The point is, someone got points they didn't earn.

That soccer comparison doesn't really hold water; there's zero connection there. Soccer has its own rules where, for instance, if an actor causes a stoppage, the result might be recorded as a 3-0 win for the other side. F1 rules are specific—they require counting laps because you can't just stop counting while people are burning through fuel.

Second off, the race was run according to the rules; there just wasn't enough momentum to let them go without the SCa. You have to let them clear the water off the track if you want a race, but you can't just freeze the lap count while drivers are draining their fuel and wearing down components. It's the regulations.

Thirdly, with that much rain, it would have been a flying start, meaning Max would have pulled away and Lewis would have been stuck in the pack.

Fourth, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I doubt most fans were happy about the race being stopped, especially since so many of us grew up on "vintage F1" and those epic races where everything went sideways.

James Collins said:No, no way. That comparison doesn't hold water. A better way to look at it might be if you fouled an opponent and ended up winning anyway. Like how Ramos Salah did in the LP final—totally wrecked them early on and then walked away with the win.
Hamilton was punished for what he did (not saying whether the penalty itself was fair or whatever), while Max isn't being punished for messing with Lewis in Brazil, and he's even getting rewarded for a victory at Spa that he didn't even finish driving.
Hamilton got penalized (we can argue about the penalty later)—Max didn't. End of story.
A crash? If Hamilton hadn't headed to the stands (since he's clearly not in the mood to see both of them DNF right now), it would've been the exact same situation as in the United Kingdom.

He hit the wall hard; the kid ended up in the hospital, and the car was basically a pile of junk along with all its internal components. Neither Senna nor Charles Leclerc "killed" their opponents like that.🤔

He got a 10-second penalty for sending that guy into the wall, and to make matters worse, he tried to take out Charles Leclerc, which was nowhere near a serious attempt.🤔

James Collins said:No, no way. That comparison doesn't hold water. A better way to look at it might be if you fouled an opponent and ended up winning anyway. Like how Ramos Salah did in the LP final—totally wrecked them early on and then walked away with the win.
Hamilton was punished for what he did (not saying whether the penalty itself was fair or whatever), while Max isn't being punished for messing with Lewis in Brazil, and he's even getting rewarded for a victory at Spa that he didn't even finish driving.
Hamilton got penalized (we can argue about the penalty later)—Max didn't. End of story.
A crash? If Hamilton hadn't headed to the stands (since he's clearly not in the mood to see both of them DNF right now), it would've been the exact same situation as in the United Kingdom.

This is just 🤦 Honestly, I’m a bit stunned by this narrative you guys have about how Lewis avoids contact when he's on the outside. ☕

When you're on the outside trying to push past someone's absolute limit, you're in the same boat as Lewis in Austria, where he tore his front wing against Rosberg and had to decide whether to risk a puncture. In almost any other scenario, you either lose your wing entirely, or you bounce off his tires and get sent wide; if you catch a rear tire, the car is going to lift or flip you onto the roof...

Sure, you could clip a rear wheel like Lewis did at Silverstone, but if you're coming from the outside, you'll likely just bounce straight into the path of his car...

There is simply no way the situation in Brazil ends up like the one in the United Kingdom. Max Verstappen holds the apex ahead of Lewis Hamilton, which effectively turns it into Max Verstappen's corner.

wiredseal7 said:It would've been smarter for Max to back off, but since he was leading and on the racing line, Lewis had to move. There was room there, which was the whole argument for why he should've been penalized for the collision.

If you ask me, he was hoping for a collision like this—he's practically a specialist at clipping a rival's rear tire (just look at what happened with Alexander Albon in Austria, among other times). He studied Max during the sprint and just waited for an opening; forcing that move on the inside before Copse wasn't an accident.

As for the penalty, it's incomparable because a collision actually happened here, whereas it didn't there. If both drivers had just slid off at Silverstone and kept racing, everyone would've forgotten about it by the end of the GP.

And let's not forget how he made things even worse for Charles Leclerc, stealing his position while the guy was busy trying to avoid a crash. Then you have teams wondering why it's considered taboo to slam into someone's wheel right at the apex.🤦

Rebecca Parker said:When I think back to Turkey last year and how many times Max spun out, who’s to say the same thing won't happen in Belgium? A wet race cancels out all the car advantages, and that's when the drivers really shine. And we all know Lewis Hamilton is the best on the grid.👍

I definitely wouldn't call off the race. We can look back at 2015 when Rosberg took on Hamilton in those wet conditions, or remember 2019 when Hamilton was spending more time off-track than on it, almost begging them to pull him out of the race...☕

P.S. I actually forgot about Imola 🤣🤣🤣 Blessed Russell, you basically snagged that seat at Mercedes-Benz right after they let go of Valtteri Bottas.🤣

Lawrence Garcia5 said:Look, we’re talking about having way more room to maneuver here. It’s not even close to what happened there.
Another thing is that Max tries to force moves that just aren't there, and then he ends up paying for it. He's had way too many of those "oops" moments over the last three seasons.

Lewis Hamilton, being on the inside at the position behind, took a late apex in a corner where a car on the outside can actually carry more speed than one on the inside.

The result was that he tagged Max Verstappen's front wheel with his own. I honestly don't see how anyone could argue Lewis isn't at fault here.

It’s even harder for me to wrap my head around why Ferrari didn't lose their minds after Charles Leclerc narrowly avoided a collision. If it had been any other driver, they would've sent them straight into a wall at 100g in a spot where you'd never expect it. This passivity from the other teams when they aren't fighting for the championship is just staggering.🤦

Rebecca Parker said:Come on, just tell us right now who's going to be the champion since that crystal ball is working overtime through all 16 races🙄

That whole farce in Belgium where they flipped everything in Lewis Hamilton's favor? Honestly, it was the absolute peak of comedy🤦

Honestly, who would have had a harder time competing in a race like that? Max Verstappen with his PP, or Lewis Hamilton starting from second row alongside those young guns? Just look at what young George Russell did with Valtteri Bottas at Imola to save the race for Lewis Hamilton.😵

And the best part is, he ended up losing way fewer points than if the race had actually gone ahead.

Or maybe you're just worried about driver safety and think the race shouldn't have happened at all, especially on a track where Red Bull Racing would have just dominated anyway.☕