LondonLax

So essentially we are all in agreement, it’s just our choice of wording on how much we criticise our manager

He did though. We started with too little experience and fortunately he realised his mistake and corrected it for the second half. In essence we gave Spurs too much respect starting 5 at the back at home, then gave West Ham too little respect starting Rogers and Duran away. Fortunately Emery realised his mistake in time today and we ended the weekend in a solid position.

We’re just too short of experience and too many out of position.

He knows what he’s doing.

I have a scenario for you as well. The ‘Umbrella Movement’ kicked off in Hong Kong because the Chinese government decreed that whilst the Hong Kong people were allowed to vote for their leader they were only allowed to vote once the candidates were vetted and any that didn’t meet the criteria of the communist party were struck off the list. Potentially you also think the people of Hong Kong were wrong to protest against their preferred candidate being struck off for not meeting the requirements to stand?

I think if they were popular enough and serious about it then it would be possible to make it happen so that the people get who they want to represent them, either by an amendment or some other interpretation.

It’s back in our hands again

4-0 No, offside

Spurs getting thrashed

Ironic that our match tomorrow is in London then

Playing 5 at the back at home to Spurs was a mistake. They can be gotten at if we were a bit braver.

It was fully within their power as the legislative branch of government essentially bar the Republican candidate but they unanimously decided it was not the way they wanted to go with it. In a robotic ‘letter of the law’ interpretation he would be barred but on a ‘is that really what we want?’ interpretation all 9 voted to let it go. This is also how I would have judged it myself and argued as much before the decision was handed down. I take it you would have ruled differently if you were in their position. I guess we will never know which would have led to the better outcome for US society in the long term.

I think there is a question of working in an ideal world vs working with the world we live in. I am pretty confident that Republicans would find reasons to disqualify candidates from standing in states where they control the legislature if the precedent is set with Trump. As a general principle I think it is better to leave it to the people to decide their choices for representation than give the power to the legislature. Even on the specific one off decision about Trump, I think it is better to let him face the electorate when he has such a large proportion of the electorate supporting him. Taking the vote away from half the country and essentially making the US a one party state would cause irreparable damage to the country.

We have no way of knowing whether they made the right decision or not but I find some logic in their reasoning, being that if they allowed states to decide their own candidates the ultimate solution would be that ‘red’ states only allow ‘red’ candidates and ‘blue’ states would only allow ‘blue’ candidates. That would make the system unworkable, even if that’s what the constitution actually says should happen.

The GOP old guard are spineless. They needed to stand up to him when they had the chance rather than thinking they could somehow tag along. Trump will destroy the Republican Party the same way Boris Johnson ran the Tories onto the rocks.

Well they run the system as they see fit. We have a similar thing in Australia for deciding the members of our upper house. It’s not decided on pure democracy, it is weighted towards all states having equal representation regardless of their actual population.

It was not a deal that was done. It was just a case of turning a blind eye because the result of ruling the other way would have lead to a far worse outcome for the US.

I genuinely think it would be worse if the 3rd of the US who passionately support Trump were told they were denied their opportunity to vote form him. I think you’d be looking at civil disobedience and even the possibility of civil war type outcomes. That would be even worse than another 4 years of Trump should he somehow actually win.

No I don’t believe I ever made that claim. There is no established reason why he should not be on the ballot. The entire US population will decide his eligibility for presidency not 9 people on a court. Ultimately that will result in a much more satisfactory outcome for US society.

Their interpretation of the issue was politically expedient. They could have chosen to interpret states to have the rights to establish their own electoral systems if they wished, there was plenty of legal opinion supporting their right to do this prior to the case being decided. The reasoning given for why the liberal justices decided the way they did was because they were worried red states would decide to bar Democrat candidates and blue states would decide to bar Republican candidates and democracy would no longer function.

All of those things are reasons for why people may choose not to vote for him in a future election. Far better to let people come to the correct decision themselves then tell them you are making the decision for them.

The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision that he is eligible to stand. The US runs their system as they see fit.

The decision not to remove him was unanimous and the reasoning given by the liberal judges was pretty persuasive that it would just be a partisan weapon used every electoral cycle to remove your political opponent. Let the people decide.

Surely removing people you don’t agree with from the ballot is the opposite of democracy? The American people will decide if they want Trump as their leader or not.

I’d say Lille fans are more frustrated with the draw than ours are.