egg

Was the dead guy in the crowd behind Trump (ie took the bullet that shaved his ear)? In the video of him fist pumping, there were no signs of carnage behind him, just jubilant fans.

Republicans are pinning this on the Democrats, and Biden. Vice presidential hopeful Senator JD Vance blamed the “rhetoric” of the Biden campaign for the “attempted assassination” of Trump. Other leading Republicans have also sought to blame Biden and the Democrats. Vivek Ramaswamy, a businessman who ran for president and is also under consideration to be Trump’s running mate, said that “Biden’s inevitable ritual condemnation of political violence today… will be insufficient and irrelevant”. “No amount of verbiage today changes the toxic national climate that led to this tragedy,” he added. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a vocal Trump supporter, accused the Democrats – without evidence – of “want[ing] this to happen”. “They’ve wanted Trump gone for years and they’re prepared to do anything to make that happen,” she said. Meanwhile, Republican Congressman Mike Collins simply said: “Joe Biden sent the orders.” Biden and other leading Democrats have denounced the shooting of Trump and there are fears that escalating rhetoric could lead to more unrest.

Cordial

Lemon

You suggested that he had plans re the Baltic states. There is no suggestion that he has plans, that's a guess. For what it's worth, if Trump pulls support for Ukraine, the European part of NATO won't stop Putin, NATO will look weak, and I can then see plans for the Baltic states as a starting point.

, If China have a crack at Taiwan?

Saying that fe certainly has plans is strong and unsubstantiated. Likely ambitions is as far as I'd go, but I think it becomes more than that if we get Trump.

If he suspects that the US won't stand behind them and/or the US are pre occupied elsewhere (Taiwan/China) it's a distinct possibility. If Trump pulls US support for Ukraine, is he going to support a conflict with Russia if they have a pop at Latvia or Estonia? He should, but would he?

Cheers. His fro has gotten massive. Hopefully that'll add to his sale price.

Who's the lad with the brilliant afro in the training pics? Don't recognise him. Also the fat coach.

I think we all know what team it means.

The suggestion is that's a change of policy, not that the lad isn't good enough. It's a simple point - pay players a market rate or we won't get or keep them.

Indeed. We're sending the wrong message to the good lads we have and potential signings. We swim in a smaller pool than Chelsea and other clubs, so we've gotta work hard to keep and retain talent. I've grown up watching the Wallace's, Shearer and later all sorts of youngsters coming through, and making us good money. Decisions like this feel like we're switching off whatever conveyor belt we had.

Offering the best talent less in 2024 than we've offered in previous years is telling.

If he'll get that elsewhere, yes. If other kids are worth it, then yes. If others aren't, no. 6 decent kids on £15kpw is £4.5m a year. If one of those kids proves good enough to sign for a mid championship team we'll get double that. It's stupid business not to reward the best talent.

Edit : just saw your 2nd post. Interesting.

Has lord sugar signed MB?

Ridiculous approach from the club. We can't expect to keep or retain the best talent by offering them less then we were paying other academy lads in the past. Absolutely pointless developing these lads if we're going to do that. Be willing to pay properly, and consistently, or don't bother.

Can't be arsed to address them all, but explain how the judicial appointments, especially in the Supreme Court, are a good thing.

Bag

Fuck me, are people really banging on about a post from ages ago? Get out more.

Who's pass was that to Watkins?

Yep. He's been hampered all tournament by Kane's lack of movement. He doesn't make any runs to create space for Foden, or anyone.

They've said "an" Hamas operative, not plural. On the 3 points, it's hard to disagree, although I'm not persuaded that 3 doesn't apply to some extent to the IDF but that they dress it up as point 2.

Aren't Russia saying they targeted terrorists in that kids hospital? Does that make it a terrorist base and a legitimate target? Regardless, the IDF haven't said that this school was a base, they say it was one suspected Hamas member. One person. But no, nothing surprises me with the IDF.