egg

If we could keep that group, we'd be very competitive, and on course for another PL relegation bid in 2027.

In what way is the world, and our country, better now than it was in say the 90's boom? Financially we're worse off in this country, the world feels a more unstable and uncertain place, people are fatter, there's more cancer, sugar and chemicals seem to be the diet of the masses. I think we've regressed.

Trump's view on Ukraine. Predictable: 'A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling the country to gain back territory occupied by Russia. Bryan Lanza, a Republican party strategist, told the BBC the Trump administration would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his version of a "realistic vision for peace". "And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said. "Crimea is gone."' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxrwr078v7o

I can't imagine it'll be RM, whatever the outcome. I can't imagine Wolves will be so benevolent if we can manage a win.

Will you be extending this "subject not people" approach to the lounge as well?

In those 2 years the US have backed Ukraine. I'll ask again - Do you think the US are likely to continue that military support when Trump takes the helm? If not, do you think the rest of the NATO countries will continue to support Ukraine? For a military stalemate, Ukraine will need ongoing military backing. The Isis point isn't a good, or relevant, one.

Whether it's that, it'll still end up as a negotiated agreement. Everyone gives up something in a negotiation.

Seems that the Macabi fans started trouble before the game and got a lot after: From CBS: "There were clashes before the game, too, as Maccabi fans were among hundreds to march through central Amsterdam in a pro-Israel demonstration, during which flares were lit and Palestinian flags hung on some streets were torn down amid chants of "death to the Arabs." Anger rose as Israeli supporters disrespected a moment of silence". You'd like to think that balanced reporting would give balanced reporting.

Occasional

No idea what half of that meant, but yep, dryrobes look dreadful.

He's also said that it'll be law that the only genders will be male and female, as per gender at birth.

And the targets are Hamas members eh.

Do you think the US are likely to continue military support to Ukraine when Trump takes the helm? If not, do you think the rest of the NATO countries will continue to support Ukraine?

He's not making a proposal. He's saying what he thinks is likely. Nobody wants a climb down from Ukraine/NATO.

True, inevitable is strong, but felt very likely.

You're ignoring the inevitable US withdrawal of support. NATO without them, in reality, is Europe. Do you really think Nato Europe will want to (or can - they can't btw) increase its arms support to Ukraine, or get it's hands dirty? It's that which will lead to European war, not a settlement.

I think it should, but I'm not sure it will anytime soon. Ceres Power are a company big on this, and their performance (and the news around them) is a decent barometer imo on this. The slide in their share price, probably reflects the direction of travel for the foreseeable. Cheap at the moment btw.

Play the tspe forward. If NATO europe continue to support Ukraine after a US pull out, and Russia make gains, what next? We either lose or pull out and look weak either way making a push further into Europe a stronger possibility, or we get our hands dirty on the ground and have a European war, then god knows what. Russia will keep land, and this will end. Forget idealism - that's reality.

This will have a negotiated settlement. The US won't sponsor a fight to the bitter end, or at all, and the rest of NATO won't fancy it without US backing. With western backing Ukraine are still losing ground, without it there'll lose the whole lot. I don't agree with Hypo re "basically Russian", but he's correct that this will resolve itself.

Yes. You're allowed to disagree, and not pay your money, but to me it's a fair price.

A finding of fact in a civil court that something happened is exactly that. A jury concluding that there is insufficient evidence to find guilt is exactly that. I make no comment about Trump as I haven't followed the cases, and make the general point that people are often acquitted in a criminal court of crimes they have probably committed, only to have been found by a civil court to have done the alleged wrong.

The article was decent, and her campaign wasn't particularly policy focused. Towards the end it ceased to be either Trump or policy focused, and just become noise. In the cold light of day it's easier to understand now why Trump got the nod, although it still beggars belief that he is the man in charge.

Fair point, although I suspect we'll ignore that if by some miracle we make it to the final!

Far from it. A finding in a civil court is a finding that something, on the balance of probabilities, has happened. In a criminal court a bit a doubt can be enough to see someone get off, but they won't get the benefit of that doubt in a civil court.

Indeed. Desperate stuff relying on that as a source.