Happy Face

I was doing that sort of thing to discredit the start we made under Pardew back in 2011. http://www.toontastic.net/board/topic/31769-whos-had-the-easiest-start/?hl=easiest I think it's a good sort of measure of who is under or overperforming, but the table won't necessarily trend towards a more "real" order over time as the confidence bred by early success is much easier to maintain and the negativity generated by poor early form is harder to turnaround. So Leicester win the title and Newcastle go down, despite not being the best or 3rd worst collection of players.

The only 2 I've done from start to finish have been the world wars and the Roman Empire. All the ancient stuff goes in one ear and out the other for me. I just can't get a handle on the names of tribes or civilisations or owt and find myself 8 hours in thinking who the fuck ARE the carthaginians? And if I haven't took it in in that long, then i've got no hope.

Common Sense is so rare and so short these days it adds no value to a cull. Hardcore History on anything older than the Roman Empire on the other hand... mark that 4 and 5 hour shit played as soon as it arrives.

You'll like this podcast then... http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/b/a/6ba597cadba10760/cswdcd10.mp3?c_id=13038436&expiration=1478608482&hwt=07183bf626a05699f54499cd57596d40 What happens if our nation’s problems become too large to realistically imagine our politicians solving? What if voting doesn’t help? Dan reminds us that he’s not a moderate, and that you probably aren’t either.

She won't, and in 4 years there'll be more extreme versions of Trump/Sanders who will get more votes.

I agree with that. Your Hannity argument does nothing to support that though. Here's the data from those researchers that reflects it as a broad truth... In Primary season, Trump got the least negative coverage of all republican candidaters, and less negative than Clinton. He also got more coverage than anyone else throughout and more than the other 3 Republican candidtaes combined as the primaries approached the end... http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/

The illusion of balance in the news has been a problem for much too long. "This democrat thinks this and this republican thinks that, you decide who is right and buy these pop tarts while you think about it" You would hope the complete disregard for this illusory balance would be a good thing in the long run and mainstream media would be more inclined to do fact based reporting. It won't happen though. They can all agree Trump is bad, when he's dispatched, then they'll get back to arguing around the edges of bi-partisan orthodoxy.

It's one celebrity endorsement. We're talking about media trends across the board. Just because Paul Krugman has been steadfast in his unyielding support for Clinton, no-one would claim for a second she's had an easy ride with widespread media backing.... though she has had a better press than Trump. As she should.

Anecdotal

That's fair. There are 3 reports spanning different times at that link. I took the one from the conventions as the latest. But coverage of Trump was much more positive early on when he was a comedy boost for viewing figures. And the report on that period reflects that. The entire media has collectively rejected him as an outsider since he got the nomination though.

I just did, and presented the evidence. You dismissed the experts from a Harvard research centre http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-national-conventions/ What would you like looked up instead? An opinion piece on Politico?

Fox have been more negative about Trump... Than they have Clinton...

Think he meant in general. See this on the Tone of Trumps Coverage... 91% negative by the end. Clinton on the other hand managed to get more positive coverage than negative..

:lol: Biggest laughs/applause from his gig on Sunday - "What we have to remember is, all the people that voted for Brexit weren't necessarily racists..... A lot of them were cunts"

"I'll just put these sandwiches and recording device down here"

Clinton's turned around the 3% deficit she had in Florida a week ago to an 11% lead today http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/

So his vision would be a series of yougov polls on every decision parliament has to make to ensure no expertise is leveraged on any choice made on behalf of the nation. Divvy.

Top stuff.

https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/601/master-of-her-domain-name "Hillary Clinton does not know how to use a desktop computer "

Trump's campaign has paid Trump's companies... $5.6m to use his planes (+$1.6m for the secret service to ride along) $500k to use Trump hotels and restauraunts for staff. $1m to rent Trump tower office space to run the campaign https://thenib.com/trumps-campaign-is-a-money-making-scam

I thought it would be canny funny if we voted for Brexit until we did. I still remember the feeling of dread looking at my phone half awake the next morning when I realised we had though. It wasn't as funny as I hoped. It appeals to me, the same way my vertigo hits at the top of a long drop and I wonder what it would be like to throw myself off. I have to stay away from the edge in case i do. Whatever happens, campaigning for 2020 will start in a couple of weeks so we have that to look forward to

So would he

I'm more worried about what we know is truthful from Trump. Like the fact he will appoint right wing supreme court judges that we're left with for decades to come, not just his 4 year term.

We all saw this months ago, but Trump saying "china" has been going through my mind all week. It's an horrific earworm.