hypochondriac

Absolutely. Israel's success has been remarkable.

I think the mitigation for being so poor now from some would be that the players are not good enough. That same logic would apply to last year where our players were more than good enough and then arguably underperformed by scraping through the lottery of the playoffs.

What an indictment of the Democrats and the way they have run the country that the candidate they put up has them so close in the polls to someone like Trump.

Just admit you thought I'd been duped and you didn't believe that someone from Time would post that when in reality it is from the owner and he's clearly not politically biased. We've all made errors-I certainly have.

It is evidence of what I said it was-her not doing the Time interview which I thought was a mistake. Here, have the link to the twitter post. You still think he's politically biased? In other news she was the first candidate in 40 years to miss the Al Smith dinner. A common complaint from Americans I know is that they don't know what she stands for and that her positions are not clear. Say what you like about Trump but that mostly is not the case for him. She has confused messaging where she wants to be the change candidate whilst endorsing everything that Biden has done. Any half decent political strategist would have her in every interview that would have her, on message and making it clear what her position is. If she does lose then imo aclvoiding doing this along with the confused messaging will be a big reason why. https://x.com/Benioff/status/1846559935401746434?t=XBLd1iBnKyUXiwl12eq88Q&s=19

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.