Rayvin

I think he might want to, but I reckon he'd try to insist on club budgets being set at a certain level, in the way Rafa presumably has. Short is very unlikely to give him those guarantees.

Fucking hell. How do they justify targeting just 'foreign' people with that? Is there any attempt at justifying it?

Return of CT to be the sequel. He'll bring balance to the politics.

On the 'pointing the finger' bit, I was responding in turn really; you did accuse us of being Trump defenders. There was a post on here last night as well that made it clear that, should Trump win, that this was HF's fault. This is not the left's fault, is the point I'm making. It's the centre's. What can the centre do? I guess there's two different issues here. First is that the centre as a reference point in the political left/right balance needs to move left. People need a harder choice between the right and something else. The risk there is that more might choose the right, but actually I think we're split on the left. Corbyn, had he not become such a toxic issue, would have allowed for this. In my view, he was torn down by the centre wing of Labour - who I feel would prefer the idea that the centre wing of the Tories are in power. As long as it's the centre, and Neoliberal. I'll post about my thoughts on more broad solutions a bit later, I'm struggling to get them down coherently while at work. Needless to say though, I don't have all the answers.

I think it would be to the benefit of everyone if Islam as a political movement was separated from Islam as a religious faith. But that said, Islam is a right wing, regressive and misogynistic ideology that we should not pander to. I think that sticks more as a political ideology though, rather than a faith. The left certainly has a problem with Islam and I've not understood how it has managed to get itself into this position. Ultimately I think identity politics, in some wings of the left, now outscores actual left wing thinking. People on that side are a problem, but I've not see anyone like that on TT...

I'm not defending Trump. Trump is a bad person. I'm trying to assist in the point being made about how Obama is ALSO a bad person (or at least part of a political system that makes him bad). And am incredulous that mass killings dressed up as political initiatives are considered acceptable by so many of you. If you guys speak for the centreground then we really are fucked, because you're willfully failing to see the problems with the establishment, how they've given rise to people like Trump, and the problems they cause for so many people. Instead of working out how to make things better, the centre is doubling down and pointing at the 'lefties' for letting through right wing shit like Brexit by not 'standing united with the centre', and looking on in dismay at people like Trump, wringing their hands and wondering how it came to this? It came to this because your fucked up political system failed people all over the place, frequently blows the fuck out of civilians in other countries in the name of profits and oil while leaving destabilising power vacuums in its wake, and cares not one bit about the consequences of such actions, beyond what it has to in order to be re-elected. It was inevitable that a backlash would come, and whining about it now isn't helping anyone. We need solutions. The right are offering solutions. The left are offering solutions. The centre isn't. And you know, I've voted for the centre - so this is as much my fuck up as yours. But the events we've seen over the past few years should be eye opening and I despair that they aren't. You guys are tackling the symptoms, not the disease.

How many deaths, to date, is Trump responsible for? Surely, objectively, Trump is the less morally questionable person, at this point? It's our ridiculous interpretation of which actions are acceptable and which are not that makes it look like he's worse. Obama's actions are all part of the plan - even if the plan is horrifying, nobody panics. </joker> Trump may be worse, but in terms of being responsible for civilian casualties, he isn't yet. Not really sure where I'm going with this other than to be surprised we don't consider politicians blowing people up to be a morally questionable issue.

Yeah I think that's a possibility. For all that stats about how rubbish their start is, it all depends on the teams around them at the end of the day. I don't think they'll beat Bournemouth but they could get a draw. Hull though, could kick start their season. And to be fair to them, they do have some 'key' players out. Whether Cattermole and Borini are enough to pull them out of this is uncertain, but they'd get straight back into their first team, so we'd have to assume they'll improve them.

By who and for what? Right wing nationalists? I could see that I suppose, although it's a low blow on their part...

Do we disagree that Russia and Saddam's stances on terrorism are effective? Without Saddam, we've created ISIS. Russia is a different consideration since they're actually fighting against US interests, but I'd have more faith in them eliminating terrorism than the US. With that said, it'd be bloody and horrifying. It'd work, though. NB - this is not an endorsement of the action, more a statement of my interpretation of reality. Dictatorships can be much more efficient than democracies, so we might find ourselves kowtowing to many countries that are set up in such a way in due course. We already are with China. As a general point, this thread has been pretty informative over the past page or so! If Trump is elected, it'll be interesting to see whether Parky's view that he'll be constrained, or HF and Gloom's views that he'll be rampant, will come to pass. I sort of see this point, and agree that he's been a capable administrator compared to some, but he's still part of the problem. The centre needs to tackle its demons, and it's obstinately refusing to do so. Until it does, they're going to deliver us into the hands of people like Trump.

I don't really see Trump as 'Republican'. He's more of an anti-establishment candidate. I doubt the republicans want him in power any more than they want Hillary. To think that they'll go along with everything he wants is a bit pessimistic. On that note, the guy has no concrete policies anyway. He might do fuck all. As you say though, he's unlikely to win. I saw one poll had him in front yesterday but people tend to go for the safe option in the end.

I'm fairly sure Renton isn't actually reading anyone's posts anymore

As I've said, I'd prefer Clinton of the two of them. Don't ask me to be happy about her being president though.

Willing to admit I could be wrong about that. But as Parky says, even if he wins, he'll have little real power.

Wasn't aware it was a political symbol but if it is then fair enough. I notice they still take money from Gazprom though, and that's a political symbol if ever there was one.

Aye, Trump is a domestic problem for the Americans, but his isolationist tendencies wouldn't affect us greatly.

Well that's true. I genuinely don't see Trump as a solution to anything with the only caveat being that his election may shake the establishment so much that they literally have to start paying attention to people. Of course, that logic was the same as Brexit - and I'm less convinced by the day that Theresa May intends to deliver anything of substance for those at the bottom of society. All that means though, is that we'll get more Brexit/Trump style fiascos in the future.

Why should HF apologise? It's the centre's rampant failings that caused this. Obama and the Neoliberals should be apologising for Trump. They caused him - not the fucking left.

The alliance between the left and the middle appears to have fallen away. As I've said a few times, people are now actually going to have to choose. For real.

Well I'm convinced now, she must have the best interests of all the children whose countries she's advocated blowing up at heart as well. My boss is an anti-union, Thatcher loving Tory, and even he is capable of random acts of kindness. I don't think this proves much.

Aye that's true. Quite happy with Ritchie.

I meant in cases not specific to Sunderland but aye, I can see those. If it is just cost cutting as aimaad says, then it does seem all rather futile when you've got Jack Rodwell on £50k/week or whatever it is. One Jack Rodwell will be equivalent to what? 104 reasonably paid admin staff? Are they gonna lay off that many?

Why do clubs lay people off when they go down though? Which jobs are so heavily tied to the PL that they simply aren't needed afterwards?