Rayvin

It's more than you've got to suggest he doesn't, at least as we stand EDIT - plus it does reference several polls though, and seems to have come to a balance between varying opinion. Clearly there are SOME people out there who think he's doing the right thing

Amazingly he does seem to have the support of almost half of the US on this one. Well, on the ban anyway. Not sure about the legal bypass bit so can't help there. I find it incredible that he has popular support on the ban with despite the outcries we've seen about it over here. http://nypost.com/2017/02/05/trump-has-support-of-nearly-half-of-america-online-polls-say/

You could argue that the consistent view there is to resist the government. They want to keep their guns so that they can oppose tyranny in the US, should they need to. Trump attempting to overrule legislation and resist the establishment forces could be argued to be an extension of the same thing. Please note, this is not my view But I think there's a consistent driving force there.

I'm glad I contribute something around here

You're kidding... the kid might not have been set for a stellar academic career, but he could have been a successful business owner of some sort. They aren't all degree educated and middle class... That's shocking to hear.

The US did also criticise Russia a couple of days back.

Sorry lads. I've let you all down

Huddersfield look like they're back in the groove again.

I don't want to write him off either but I'm not sure how much of that is down to liking how the guy is as a person and how much of it is actually believing he has the potential to be a very good player.

Ahh ok. In that case maybe he'll give them a boost.

Palace had Remy on the bench. How far his stock has fallen

I'm in a war of narratives with the establishment I'm employing the same tactics everyone else is. I did say I was being puerile though

I was being puerile, don't worry. Also, I think you guys fundamentally misunderstand my politics. I am not a massive lefty. I'm a liberal. And I can see that Trump is a scarier prospect than what has come before in recent political memory. Where our outlooks differ, is that you guys just absolutely want rid of the guy, cos you think he'll kick off world war 3 or something. Which is a totally understandable perspective. My hope is that he's a necessary evil that forces a shift in society away from the bollocks we had that brought us to this point. You'll say that stuff just isn't as bad as Trump. I'll say we'll continue to get Trumps and Brexits until we sort this out properly. I don't want these things to ever happen again. But it was clear as day following Brexit that the right had stolen a march on the left and that the centre was collapsing. Thus, the only position I could take was to hope that Trump and Brexit are so painful that they wake up the establishment, and make them realise that they have to do things differently. The concern I have at the moment is that the establishment is leading the fight back against Trump. If they win, we get our short term relief, but then it starts all over again. We need a centrist, liberal government that does not identify as the establishment and which is answerable to people not big business and special interests. That would best suit me. To get there, I think we need the left to win. Admittedly I'm playing the long game.

it actually would.

I'm a bit lost here, which bit of my post was contentious? Thatcher? ewerk said we were plumbing new depths, I'm just saying it's been worse.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao are all amongst previous depths. And Thatcher, who kicked all this nonsense off. He's bad, but he's not on as yet unplumbed depths.

I agree, he's absolutely on par with the standard of cuntishness we've come to expect from the political class. Well said.

Neatly suits his agenda really.

The US has condemned Russian actions in Ukraine as of today. Sanctions to remain in place until Russia hands the Crimea back to Ukraine. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/haley-russia-un/index.html

I think so, it's entirely subjective though. He's not playing for them, and they got him for £13m 6 months ago. Loaning him out takes him off the wage bill and they can fully recoup their losses in the summer. Asking for £2m for 6 months was just taking the piss. Sounds like it was because they were desperate for immediate funds - what we probably should have done is offered them £13m for a permanent transfer immediately. EDIT - If it was an attractive proposition for a deal, you'd think other teams might have considered it.

If we demonstrate supporter anger quickly enough, it might force Ashley into a corner again.

I'm not blind to this, but Palace were effectively asking us to pay £2m more than they paid us, for someone they don't even use. The failing was in not having alternatives lined up/resting on their laurels. Not on refusing to agree to such a stupid deal.

If it's all coming down to that Townsend deal it's a tough one for me. That was a shit deal. £2m for the loan and then £13m in the summer.

Good question - doesn't seem like many are based on this report in the Guardian (since it's only noted for a couple of clubs), but Levy is at Spurs, for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn My thinking for Charnley was just that his salary is so much lower than you'd expect it to be for a company with a turnover of £100m+, that there must be something else getting paid to him. The alternative, which I can readily believe, is that he's subpar.

Yeah I just checked the same thing and I get your point, but he did get us relegated last year, so there's no guarantee that he would have actually earned one. I find the notion that he's not on some manner of bonus scheme incredible, but I guess Ashley is a strange guy.