hypochondriac

Hold on I thought yesterday you were suggesting I had been duped by even bringing up the Time story. Do you still think the owner is political biased? If it's a complete irrelevance then why even reply? I did see the Fox News interview it was pretty cringe in a lot of places and probably explains why she's been avoiding a lot of interviews.

So winning the popular vote but narrowly behind in the swing states she needs to win the presidency? My point anyway was that she is clearly not doing as well as she was previously so you would imagine she would take any opportunity to get herself out there in order to persuade voters to come out for her.

Not did I ever claim it was.

Apologies it was the owner of Time magazine. Fairly sure he isn't politically biased. He seems about as liberal as you can get.

From USA today a couple of hours ago: Harris has narrowly trailed in battleground-state polling throughout October.

I'm posting something that, was posted by the CEO of Time magazine...

Duped in what way? I think she should do a long form interview with time. I don't think it's a good look to avoid it and she's losing in the polls so you'd think she'd be up for it.

Not a good look for Kamala. She's had a bit of a mare so far with what should be a pretty easy job to look competent and normal in order to defeat Trump.

Again though they really shouldn't have gone hard on weeding out corruption and Starmer wanging on about how this new broom is going to sweep away cronyism and then do things like give Taylor Swift unprecedented levels of security after meeting her and after half the cabinet have accepted free tickets to her concert. It's almost certainly innocent but it looks terrible. Why put yourself in that position? Just seems naive to me.

I genuinely don't care about Taylor Swift but haven't the main people pushing the Swift story been sky news? Regardless, you're right that if Labour can sort out the economy then no one is going to care about anything else. I reckon that's the calculation they have made.

Oh dear

A publication I haven't read in about 20 years. So no.

By all accounts the vast majority agreed before the election...

As much as I detest him, it would have been rather interesting to see where we would have ended up had we appointed Nathan Jones after relegation. Maybe his aggression would have got us promoted and in an alternative scenario it would have been kind of fascinating to see how we would have fared in the prem in that case. If we'd employed Martin instead of Jones maybe he would be the hated one.

Womp Womp

Did they do a warning about someone getting a poker up the arse? Probably a standard Friday night for some of those students.

We are just so fortunate that we went up in spite of this fuck up. Had we not it would have been a major contributing factor and would have been a millstone around our neck.

I just assume you exagerrate your reactions a tad for the forum as most people do. I agree there will be criticism whatever they do but that was also true for the Tories and probably to a more vociferous degree. Tories royally cocked up the running of the NHS so I hope they don't just give them a load of funding but look to make actual operational changes. I think I've shown I'm more than prepared to give praise to the government regardless of my ideological differences with them. I'm still hopeful that the budget will not be as extreme as some have reported.

Presumably you'd be saying similar when Sunak had the reins of power? Of course it possible for a Chancellor to have a number of options and choose the wrong ones. Like I said though, hopefully reports are correct and they've rowed back on the planned stark rise in cgt.

We have different definitions of cheap. Yes we got him cheaper than we may have done were he not injured but certainly not cheap by any means.

Good times podcast this week where they essentially say that the messaging has been complete crap. They understood that they had to make things look as terrible as possible to try to blame everything on the previous administration but it then requires a level of optimism about how they are going to fix things and about how they were going to make things better which is not a message they have communicated yet. You'd imagine the budget would be the big chance to try to start that so they better hope they have something really positive to report outside of the doom and gloom baiut the supposed black hole that hey apparently knew nothing about.

Let's hope this is correct. Perhaps some sanity after all.

Not sure I'd count it as cheap. It's up there with one of the more expensive championship transfers in history.

There's a time and a place to call out bad behaviour. It would be pretty naive to think that diplomacy doesn't sometimes mean shutting your trap every once in a while to get something you want. Hence Lammy will be staying quiet and smiling if Trump gets back in despite all the stuff he's said about him. Let's not pretend that Labour were not perfectly happy to take the P&O investment and grab the good headlines, only to have it ruined because a couple of their fringe weirdos aren't politically savvy enough to understand when to keep it shut. Hopefully they're booted out like Gray ASAP and maybe Starmer can start salvagong this thing.

It's because the ones mouthing off are the lefties used to being in perpetual opposition and able to say whatever they want without consequence. They're used to student politics but now they're in power they fail to realise that statements they make are finally listened to and there's consequences to their actions.