Rayvin
-
Posts
21520 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Everything posted by Rayvin
-
Bet you're all missing my inadequately cited arguments now.
-
Aye good points and probably the way Ashley will look at it at least.
-
You think it'd take that much? There's a lot of shite at the lower end of the PL, I'm really not sure how far off we are from them. Although I'll readily concede that it's not worth taking any risks.
-
I don't even remember that name tbf. And aye, the Sels experient has gone the same way as Guardiola's Bravo experiment. The only thing that might offer us some hope with him is that every new keeper we get seems shite at first. Elliot certainly did.
-
Agreed, there's no reason to worry. Our squad was Championship proof at the start of the season, to the point where it arguably wasn't worth bringing people in anyway. I get that Shelvey getting injured is a massive concern, but aside from him there aren't any areas of weakness in the squad. Palace can fuck off.
-
Thanks.
-
That sounds highly ambitious to me like I guess you never know but it's looking far more like it'll be no one at all.
-
I think McCarthy was our best chance for a Shelvey option, and at £20m it just isn't worth it. Better off waiting for the summer on that one. I could see Ritchie and Townsend being alternated to some reasonable degree of effectiveness though.
-
I have totally lost the will for this now and as curious as I am about what relevance the methodology used in the statistical analysis of bird migration patterns has, I'll just concede the whole thing.
-
I think all that's required is that CT comes back so we can all unify around his ridiculous views rather than mine. Or I could learn to just shut the fuck up about politics and limit my discussions to football
-
I see. Presumably I should be looking for your evidence for you? EDIT - scratch that, you're saying you want more evidence than I've already given you, in actual fact. It's pointless though isn't it, because you won't give it the time of day anyway. Hence, I note that this is a futile task for me I guess I get something out of sounding ideas out, maybe that gives me something back.
-
I certainly didn't intend to suggest it was imminent. I literally just threw it out there because I thought it was interesting! To be fair to you guys, I don't know why I keep getting pulled into this, and it must be getting tiresome. I keep thinking 'I'll leave it there' but sometimes you guys post things that I think are just so flagrantly wrong that I can't help myself I'm not raging - I enjoy fierce debate though As I said mind, I should step back a bit. I've posted articles, I've cited my evidence, if you still reject it after appraising them then fine. I can't see any significant counter evidence to the contrary being made though. Just baseless claims. I do genuinely think I have demonstrated in the past that I'm prepared to be 'convinced' with the right evidence. However, I accept that none of you are likely going to want to bother sourcing your arguments since you all have jobs and such, so this really is all a bit futile on my side.
-
Er...agreed. But since AH came and made the point in jest, I threw in the random factoid about this just for the hell of it. It was never intended as a furthering of the discussion. Which is patently obvious, surely. Here's the post you replied to: What made you think that I was furthering a discussion about Trump with that? I mean, I know my views are being rounded on at every opportunity here, but come on
-
Bernie was promising jobs - he was promising some quite similar things, just with a progressive stance backing it. Did you read the fucking article man? It clearly says that local Democrats in these areas were dismayed that the Clinton campaign decided to push the attack on Trump on the basis of misogyny and so on rather than addressing the economic issues that had won these areas for the Democrats every time for the past 40 years. If that's not Hillary's fault - and keep in mind that these are the areas that lost her the Presidency, then whose fault is it?
-
FFS https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/12/give-robots-personhood-status-eu-committee-argues
-
Um, that's how it appears to work. Please note, I'm citing things. You guys are just blithely rejecting everything I'm saying on the basis of fuck all
-
This is an interesting one - 30% of the people who voted Trump don't agree with "most" of his policies. Now, I would normally point to this to reinforce my point about people wanting change more than anything else (and I think it still supports this), but at the same time it mentioned that 17% of Trump voters said Obama did an ok job. Which doesn't sound like the kind of thing someone who really wanted change would say. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/meet-the-pro-obama-donald-trump-voters-there-are-plenty-of-them/?utm_term=.9f3ba8426b19 I think there's two possibilities one for and one against my view. In the against, there's misogyny. It could be that a lot of people simply didn't like Clinton because she's a woman. I would say her personality could also be a factor here but tbf, Trump wins the 'awful' personality stake by any objective measure, I would argue. In the for, it's the fact that even though they thought Obama did ok, they didn't want more of the same. I personally think Obama was a good president, so I can see this argument. Although I'll stress that my view on this is perhaps different to the people who voted.
-
I think I've mentioned mind, that the UN...or maybe it was the EU... was discussing giving them human rights. Which would be an intriguing development.
-
Well until another viable rationale comes along for it, I'm considering it likely. Why do you think that specific 17% voted for him then? I'll also point out that there was a 16% swing to Trump from working class people who voted for Obama. Could those people have voted for Sanders? Is that unlikely? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-voters-who-heavily-supported-obama-switched-over-to-trump/2016/11/10/65019658-a77a-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?utm_term=.15fc0867d11f This is a good article that demonstrates Hillary consistently lost to Sanders in working class areas, lost to Obama in the primaries before this one in the same areas, and that these areas went and turned to Trump in 2016. Despite having voted Democrat every election since 1972, in the case of one of them in their case study. I mean come on. Why are you guys so determined to protect these failed, washed up losers? The centreground simply didn't care, and this nightmare happened on its watch.
-
Which is, as we all know, actually meaningless. I mean fair enough, don't blame them. But they're being subjected to a grassroots takeover for their incompetence right now, which actively does blame them. They lost the Presidency, the House and the Senate, and 69 of 99 state legislators. They were totally fucking annihilated. At what point do they have to take responsibility for that?
-
Heh, probably. But as I've said in other posts, 17% of the people who actually voted for Trump, did so despite him being a 'not qualified for office'. If that doesn't scream 'I'm voting for something, anything that isn't the status quo' I don't know what does. And I'm fairly certain that 17% would have gone straight to Sanders based on the same principle.
-
They would have elected Sanders, according to the polls, if he had gone up against Trump. It's the DNC's arrogance that has given us Trump. And the single reason that I get so worked up about the centre. I think the simple truth is that the centre's bread is buttered better by a right wing fuckwit like Trump than it is by someone on the left. So whenever they're faced with one of the two, they strive to take down the one on the left.
-
They'd also be hard pushed to assert that we really need him given our current league performance.
-
In the UK I think you're dead right. Brexit will be a slow burner and it'll take a long time to resolve. In the States I'm not so sure. I think Trump will be a short lived, crazy fiasco, and I think it primes the way for a really progressive, Sanders esque candidate to come in on his heels offering 'hope, freedom and never again shall we blah blah blah'. The risk with Trump is that the losers previously in charge take his rejection as tacit endorsement of what they'd been doing previously, and set the scene for a repeat. EDIT - or he forms a fascist dictatorship of course. Then we'll end up being 'liberated' by the Chinese or something.
-
You and me both.
