norwaysaint

I feel like I'm in a parallel universe here. We did just finish sixth didn't we? And qualify for Europe again? The board did manage to replace our last exciting, up and coming manager with another exciting up and coming manager who has been the only one to stay with us for two seasons since Dave Jones? Now we are possibly losing our manager to a team with more prestige and more money and this means the board are useless? Okay.

Well, it was great to at least get a manager to complete two seasons with us for the first time this century.

Well, it was great to at least get a manager to complete two seasons with us for the first time this century.

Wow, people have high expectations of the kind of player we can expect to want to sit on our bench indefinitely. I'll be very surprised if that's what Stekelenberg wants and he knows he cant dislodge Forster as first choice. I'd be happy to keep him if his aims are that low though. I would have thought a promising lower league keeper would be more likely though.

It's almost like this forum is made up of different people who think different things, isn't it?

Should always change the opposite ones together.

What, Birmingham? Christ no.

Haven't seen much mention of Targett on this thread yet, but I thought he put in a really good performance. He's really grown into his role since a weak start to the season and I'd now be happy to see his name on the team sheet any time. Great to have him when we need Bertrand to move to CB, which he seems to do seamlessly.

Thought Pelle took his goals well, but Long, VvD, Davis and Targett all did very well today. Long gets it for me, as he was causing them constant problems.

Obviously stats can be deceiving and aren't necessarily proof of anything, but that's pretty interesting.

Have you looked at the quiz results after taking it? If you click on how your answers compare with Trump (or any other candidate) it will show you direct quotes from Trump stating his position on every issue from affirmative action to subsidising farmers. It's very thorough. Trump has become widely known for his position on immigration and has played on that because it's stirred up the reaction he was after. He has stated his position on all of the other topics as well though and taken part in debates where they've been discussed. The other issues get less publicity because in most other areas, Trump is pretty moderate, as opposed to Cruz and Rubio who are very conservative. This is one of the things they attacked Trump for in the last debate.

As said before, Trump may be loud and obnoxious when he speaks, but most people taking the test above have found his policies to be far more acceptable than the likes of Cruz or Carson. Trump has based his entire campaign on being as undiplomatic as possible. The mainstream and social media have led us to believe he is the most awful choice and that somehow we need one of the other candidates to step up and beat him. I'm not convinced this is true. I think a Cruz win would be the worst option, with Rubio not far behind. Trump is actually one of the more liberal options remaining for the Republicans, on everything except immigration. The problem for the Democrats is that they lack any truly charismatic candidate.Most people taking the quiz found that they were close to 90% agreement with Sanders or Clinton, but not many people actually "like" those candidates, nobody "loves" Hilary Clinton, which shows their public images are going very wrong somewhere, because those who agree with Trump's policies seem to adore him.

I'm a big fan of the BBC, but I'm starting to get really tired of all of their anti-Trump comments and articles. I don't really think it's right that they should be singling out one political candidate and attacking them. I know Trump's a ****, but as most of us who took the survey above discovered, most of the alternatives are actually even more unpleasant, despite their more diplomatic public image. In the last few days we have why his win in Nevada isn't that impressive http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35651682 How Trump can be stopped: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35649252 Why Republicans hate Trump: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35607206 Plus loads of other articles with a clear anti-Trump agenda. I don't like the bloke, but Cruz, Rubio and Carson are horrible people too, why pick on Trump and not them?

Ben Carson always seems to come very low, many of the ones I've seen have him as low as 16%. He must have some really obnoxious values... He'll be one of the next to drop out anyway.

Similar attitude to me politically and similar result.

This is interesting to do. I used it with my students, but first asked them who they all thought the worst and best candidates were. Pretty much everybody said Trump worst, but they all had candidates below him in the end and nearly all had Cruz and Carson as the lowest. It was good to show them that you can't judge the policies just by the public image. Trump is not the worst candidate by most people's values it seems and it might not be a good thing to hope that Cruz can beat him. Haven't had a single Republican yet, but I suppose Norway is pretty liberal. http://www.isidewith.com/

I like Hibs over Hearts solely because of reading Irvine Welsh books. Anyone else?

Not to mention the fact that the money given out in benefits is dwarfed by the amounts avoided in tax.

Feel a bit bad that when I read that Scalia had died at the weekend, my first though was about the political reaction. It'll be interesting to see whether Obama will be able to get a liberal choice in before the end of his term or whether the senate can block him long enough in the hope of getting their own choice in next year. Does anyone know whether there's a time limit for the choice. I'd consider the Supreme Court arguably the single most important part of government as they can easily block the other two and their decision is so final. In many ways, this vote is as big as the presidential race, as it will give one side a majority. It's not quite so glamourous though.

Most of the population of Cornwall judging by my last visit. It was almost impossible to get data on my mobile anywhere in the county. I was amazed that anywhere in a developed country could have such poor coverage still. I can be in my cabin in the forest, surrounded by mountains and no town for 40 miles and still get 4G here, but get 5 miles from Plymouth...

Just like Clyne, Shaw, Schneiderlin, Lambert and Lallana did?

I think those are only the viewpoints of those lacking a wider insight. I'm sure you're sensible enough to realise that the group you are describing are matched by an equal group on the right, therefore negating any rational reason for holding it up as valid. I think once you start giving people with another viewpoint silly labels, you are allowing yourself to pigeonhole that section of society and then give yourself an excuse to refuse to listen to alternative perspectives. This is not a mature approach to real discussion and debate and is just a way of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "wahwahwah" when somebody has something to say that you don't like. There are an equal number of idiots on the right and left and it's important to accept that pretty early on. There is no value in dismissing left wing viewpoints because you don't like a left wing person, just as the same is true the other way around. It simply makes no sense. This whole idea of right wing good/left wing bad or vice versa is just a very shallow and uncultured way to look at things. The constant pejorative use of terms like "leftie" pretty much show the poster using them as a person you can't take seriously and who isn't worth debating with. I think both sides on this board are guilty of dropping very quickly into snide insults and personal attacks, but for some reason, the name calling seems to go mostly one way. Take posts 1 and 3 as examples, both were unrealistic attempts to blame all of the country's problems on the other side, but only one went to the lowest common denominator trick of name-calling. I've found that one of the main reasons why debate founders and collapses pretty quickly on this forum. Views are too polarised. One of the major changes I found as I grew up was the realisation that many people simply don't experience the world in the same way as I do and that their voice is as valid as mine, even though they don't speak for me. I'm surprised more people haven't had the same revelation, but keep on with the same mantra of "No, that's not right for me, therefore you are wrong/stupid/misguided."

This thread has started off pretty badly, but the OP kind of sabotaged any sensible discussion himself with some quite immature and unsophisticated comments, so I guess it's what he wanted. Anybody who thinks right or left wing politics are wholly wrong is pretty ignorant. If you are right wind by nature, but can't understand the benefits of left wing thinking, or vice versa, you are clearly a person to be avoided. Jumping straight in with childishly pejorative language doesn't help generate any kind of discussion. The idea of dismissing the whole other perspective with terms like "P.C. clowns and huggie fluffie lefties" means that you've already ruled out any ability to understand that different people experience the world differently to you and that they should be represented too. It's the sort of world view many of us had at about 16 and then grew out of. Having right wing leanings and therefore ignoring the importance of the left wing in the world is a bit like declaring you're right handed and promptly chopping off your left hand because you don't intend to use it.

Anyone know much about Bloomberg? Enormously wealthy, well respected politician, has historically had a foot in both Republican and Democrat camps. Independents usually get nowhere, but he may be a compromise for Republicans who can't stomach Trump/Cruz and Democrats who won't vote for Clinton or Sanders.There are going to be a lot of voters unhappy with their party's candidate, whatever happens.

Could it be that a fairly interesting discussion on a relevant political subject has just descended into personal sniping comments? Surely that's almost unheard of on saintsweb (or internet forums in general)? I'll be off then.