MessiWillSignForVilla

I think repairing the damge to their international reputation that Trump has done will be near the top of their priority list. Sure a lot of it is irreparable, as a lot of their allies have seen that it only takes one election to make them unrelaible as an ally, but the Democrats will want to fix it ASAP, as they will want to keep hold of their monkier of "Leader of the Free World" and won't want to lose their superpower status, so reasserting themselves internationally will be very important. Add in that they will also want to rebuke the idea that foreign powers can just mess about with their democracy when they want, and it's almost certain that after sorting out the domestic mess Trump has made, they will want to clean up the international one.

Possibly, but he will be 78 when he takes office (if he wins of course), taking over from Trump as the oldest person to be elected President, and will already be older than Reagan who was the oldest person to hold the office, so I think it will be out of his hands. I also don't think Biden is the type of guy to cling on to power when it could cause long term damage to the Democrats, as I don't think an 82 year old man will have great chances of re-election.

I personally think he'll step down before 2024, and the reason they picked Harris as VP was so they could get a female President in through the back door so to speak, so that they can normalise the idea without having to go through a campaign that would be inevitably be compared to Clinton's disastorous one.

Before Bush, a candidate hadn't won the Presidency without winning the popular vote for over 100 years, and dislike of the EC was a bipartisan issue until the last 20 years. The fact that both recent examples have resulted in Republican presidents kinda highlights the issue. If Trump were to win the EC and lose the popular vote (he is extremely likely to lose this, 538's model puts his chances of winning the popular vote at 3%) then 7 of the last 8 elections would have had a Democrat win the popular vote, whilst only winning the Presidency 50% of the time. The Republican platform is becoming more and more out of touch with the American people, but by stacking the deck in their favour they have managed to cling on to the presidency more often than they should have, all whilst becoming increasingly obstuctionist and detached from their supposed beliefs, seemingly morphing in to a party that believe in "stopping the libs" rather than conservative ideals (For example, what has Trump promised to do in his second term? I'm pretty sure his entire campaign has been Democrats=Bad, nothing else). After both 2008 and 2012, it was said that the Republicans needed to adapt to the changing face of America, and they appeared to be trying to attract more diverse support, at least in appearance if not substance, by having Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio as major candidates in 2016 (both 1st generation immigrants), but then Trump made them realise they could be completely unrepresentative of the American people whilst still winning the Presidency so are doubling down further and target very select groups of people in a handful of states, instead of trying to represent all Americans. And that is all thanks to the EC being so unrepresentative, which cause the votes of the average Pennsylvanian to be worth more than that of a New Yorker, Californian, Texan or Montanan. There's a reason why when America exports "Democracy" around the world, they never set up Electoral Colleges.

Signing a contract to agree to work on someones land in exchange for them paying for your trip is in no way comparable to slavery.

Not really as it was 2 years ago compared to about 3 days ago, not to mention that only 3 of the players that played tonight played in that game, most wouldn't give a shit about what happened before they joined. Edit - Just to add, if anything it would've been Leeds that were more motivated by that game, as they felt more aggrieved by the game than us.

You just need to look at any Leeds fans comments about the result, most I've seen mention Gabby, it clearly bothered them, and that feeling was likely shared by their players.

We played badly and the team certainly deserve flak, but Gabby wrote their **** teamtalk for them with a needless dig at them, he should just keep his mouth shut in future as we aren't in a position to give our opponents any extra motivation.

First time he's ever done it I think though. Before Nuno joined Wolves, he was a central midfielder, so his primary experience in defence has been under Nuno's 3 at the back.

Whilst I dislike the idea of a Super League, a part of me really wants to see it, just to see what happens to teams like Arsenal when 5 years in they've routinely scrapped at the bottom, barely won and their attendances have dropped to 25%, I wonder how the Super League's "Top 6" will respect Arsenals heritage and stature when they've become the turd that won't flush. And how will those teams like the Super League when all they're fans get bored of supporting teams that lose more often than win and move on? How big will there slice of the pie be when they aren't drawing the crowds the others do? Would Arsenal v AC Milan become the Brighton v Burnley of the Super League that "no-one" wants to watch? Doesn't necessarily have to be Arsenal or Milan, but it would be hilarious to see "big" teams become the small fish in a league that will desperately want rid of them.

Our relegations were more recent, it's the 9 teams with the current longest spell in the league. It's arbitrary really though, the proposal has been designed so any 3 clubs could fill that slot, all that's needed is the top 6 to agree on something to implement changes.

Man Utd and Liverpool in being huge words removed using a pandemic as a power grab shocker. Some of the notable awful suggestions; - Reduction to 18 teams in PL, which essentially means kicking two teams out of the EFL, which could well be a death knell to those clubs. - Scrap the League Cup and Community Shield, only to start the season later and introduce a summer tournament, so they can have their money making friendlies i.e. nothing to do with the complaints players have over playing too many games, just that the Cup doesn't earn them enough money. - "Special status" to 9 teams (Everton, Southampton and West Ham are the other three), with a 6/9 vote needed to make major changes, essentially giving the top 6 a monopoly on how english football is run, hilariously including a veto on new owners that may challenge the top 6. - Bring FFP rules in line with UEFA's stricter rules that limits clubs losses and owner contributions to 1/3rd what it currently is. - Shake up of how TV Revenue is distributed, with one part based on three year performance. I.e. let us have a bigger slice of the pie or why should we be punished for being shit? - Changes to the loand system that allows even more players out on loan domestically, which would allow much easier hoovering up of lower league talents by top clubs, stifle youth development at these clubs as the lower leagues get lttered with PL cast offs, and bring further damage to the England national team as young english players will get more hurdles put in their path to first team football. - Just the general bribes/hostage taking throughout the proposals, with the Man Utd and Liverpool showing they could save english football if they wanted whilst helping fans and the womens game, but only if they're allowed to run it totally for their benefit from now on. I really hope this falls flat and fans of all clubs protest it. It's **** disgraceful that they would use a time of such desperation to do this.

Still won more post war than Leeds in their entire history...

Oh, we are definitely getting pumped 4-0 or something. We were shocking against them in the Championship, and even the couple of years before they went down when they were terrible. We were actually decent against them when they were good.

This is ultimately what I don't get about Bielsa. He's raved about as being amazing, and I get that he's certainly a manager's manager, but if you look at every manager inspired by him, they take his ideas but convert them in to something much better and add the stability that makes his ideas workable. That's why Bielsa hasn't won a major trophy for 30 years. Professional sport is littered with visionaries who are so obbsessed with their systems that they can't see the faults or can't apply the system to get sustained success, who are then followed by much better coaches that perfect their ideas. For all the managers that are inspired by Bielsa (Pochettino, Guardiola, Simeone to name a few), how many actually play similarly to him? Or even each other? So maybe Smith was inspired by Bielsa, but he'd just be another in a long line of managers that saw his work and went "I can make that better".

Hahaha, did you manage to miss Gomez playing attacking midfield against Leeds or van Dijk giving Bamford an assist?

That he's not sure if Barkley is an upgrade for us and that being an England regular doesn't mean much.

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but there's no Alisson and no Mane for them, that's two huge players that they massively rely on. Still going to be a massive ask obviously, but with those two out, our chances improve massively.

We could lose 10-0 and everyone would still be talking about Utd losing.

Baggies losing 2-0 to Southampton. Starting to look like the bottom four could be cut adrift from everyone else come the end of the season.

So how long after the match does Bruce say the win should "shut a few up"?

Wesley and Kalinic I assume. Also wouldn't be surprised to see either Lansbury or Nyland have their contracts terminated as they both have just one year left on their contracts too.

How the hell has Dallas got away with that?

Scored on his League debut for us as well to be fair.