MessiWillSignForVilla

1 minute ago, bickster said:

That clearly isn't an argument. Lewinski has been interviewed many times and not once has she ever hinted at that.

Definitely, it was more pointing out that if you were to make an argument, that would be the one, not that it was necessarily a good one.

1 minute ago, bickster said:

What does #metoo have to do with it? Two consenting adults as far as I remember. 

There's probably an argument to be made that with Clinton being Monica Lewinski's boss it would have put her in situation where she felt she couldn't say no, especially as he was the President. However, as far as I'm aware, there has been no allegation along those lines and as you say, it was consensual. The only really shitty thing was the cheating element.

10 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

You could probably say the same about Clinton really. 

Not really, one got impeached for lying about an affair, the other got impeached for obstructing an investigation in to him trying to bribe a foreign government to interfere in the election.

1 minute ago, Wainy316 said:

Nevada as closed a lot, Trump marginally behind now 

Still to count Clark County mail in which is anticipated to go in Biden's favour 

 

 

Nevada are accepting mail in ballots up until 10th November as long as they were postmarked by yesterday.

19 minutes ago, villakram said:

What horrible people, obeying the laws of their land, shouting "Jews will not replace us".

Neo-liberalism loves the distraction provided by this and other social issues. Now pay your taxes like a good chap.

Fixed that for you.

Why is it that people who moan about "both sides" being bad always end up defending the fascists and white supremecists?

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

I dunno, Jon. Israel, Iran, the Paris climate agreement - these things aren't going to go away. Relations with China and the EU, N. Korea, Syria - all that stuff is important to the USA. Plus the USA has never not got involved (for its own ends) in "World affairs".

Sure I agree they'll need to sort out the mess domestically, and that may be number 1 priority, but I think the focus will be wider.

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.

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

That idea was certainly floated during the primaries, and never definitively shot down. I just assume that, once inside the White House, he'll decide he likes it a bit too much for that. But I wouldn't bet on that either way.

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.

57 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Agreed; fortunately for him, it looks like the perfect election for it.

I imagine his ego will get the better of him, and he will decide to run for reelection, but I imagine that lack of enthusiasm will have serious consequences in four years' time.

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.

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

I wouldn't go that far. Twice recently the candidate has lost the popular vote and won the EC. Both Republicans and both controversially.  

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.

1 hour ago, villakram said:

That's not strictly true. The first colonial settlers brought the local indentured class with them, and all the great european migrations have tales of horrid conditions and similar indenture in one form or another. I am unfamiliar with the early asian/latino migrations but I'm sure people treated each other like shit there too. This is no way invalidates what occurred elsewhere and the obvious longer term structural issues present to this day. 

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.

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Well, Bamford wrote our team talk 2 years ago and the media spunkfest added a nice appendix to it.

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.

Just now, Demitri_C said:

He did the team talk for them. You think they were not out to prove a point tonight? If anything the team gabby described was us tonight

We were  a horror show 

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.

Just now, Mic09 said:

Can we please just ignore Gabby in this post match discussion?

Honestly, a fan having a laugh on the internet seem to be people's problem here. Jesus Christ, I'm more concerned about Grealish, Barkley andMcGinn having a stinker than an ex player/pundit.

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.

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

He was in a 2 in England's last match after Maguire got sent off I'm pretty sure?

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.

5 minutes ago, rjw63 said:

Why Southampton and Wet Spam?

Villa and Newcastle have had more seasons in the Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemier League.

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.

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

1 minute ago, tinker said:

Glad this bickering will be over in a few weeks , I wonder who will come out on top. Bet it's a draw,, 4-4 . 

Leeds had a great game against Liverpool and we had a better game , we have had an extra year in the Premier League but Bielsa has had a few more years to build his team. 

Question I would really like to ask is how long has Philip's got left on his contract? 

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.

13 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

As for Crediting Bielsa with "showing us the way" (muppets) they really should be saying how brilliant Smith is, in being able to take Bielsa's ideas and convert them from a 4-3 loss to a 7-2 win......

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".

3 hours ago, BigRed said:

I think what villa fans are missing is that on the night Liverpool were terrible at the back so the focus instantly went to how poor they were defending. 

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

2 minutes ago, AshVilla said:

I HOPE YOUR WATCHING MILOT. 

WERE WINNING THE LEAGUE.

Just now, osmark86 said:

What is this Souness lad saying?

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.

22 minutes ago, dubbs said:

No but you can imagine the reaction from everyone,  and it'll stop Rashica signing too!

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