RicoS321

Okay, well then it's not true.

No, EVs are not a step in the right direction, they're a can kicking exercise, and if people like the democrats didn't lie about such non-solutions, you would know that. I'm not being remotely pedantic here either. To me, it's equally bad to be pretending that you don't believe in climate change as presenting solutions (net zero, EVs, green growth, CCS etc etc) that you know not only won't solve the issue, but keep us believing that it will until it's too late to change course. The result of both is exactly the same, so why does it matter which political wankery got you there? Why would anyone pretend that one is better than the other, when the issue is simply one of timing?

I find these types of statement hilarious. They're generally said by people who have absolutely zero interest in women's sports and when asked about prison conditions would usually respond with the moronic: "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Where were you when women were being raped and abused in institutions up and down the country by men with cocks, that were not dressed as women at the time? Or when women were giving birth in their cells? Or any other far more pressing issues in women's prisons that don't involved getting biffed by a tranny. It's fucking mental how such a side issue has been elevated to something important. It's impressive actually. It started with an attempt to help a relatively small number of people with identity issues, was picked up by the crap-rags who made it the biggest issue of our times (your daughters are going to get fucked by a man dressed as a girl in the public toilets!!!!). Hilariously, the"progressives" responded in equally loud and shouty manner, resulting in it being a bigger story than if Jesus had returned. Now it's an issue that everyone and their dog has to have "a position" on. I genuinely couldn't give a fuck about another person's genital history.

The democrat party pretend to have a solution. It involves continued pursuit of economic growth apparently. I'm not entirely sure why you'd care whether someone has acknowledged the issue or not, if it's entirely out with their ideology to solve the problem. It's not a step towards anything, it's just a meaningless step. It's like someone admitting that they're an alcoholic, and their solution is that they'll only drink when they're out, because they like a drink at a party. Then finding out that they were actually drunk that very moment, and had been for six days.

That's an extremely strange statistic. Sounds to me like you're excluding the production of the ICE vehicle for some weird reason. For the record, over their lifespan, there are significantly less emissions produced by an EV. For reference, I have driven an EV for fourteen years and do not believe that EVs are an answer to the issues that we face.

But the other team's stance leads to exactly the same outcome. Why is one abhorrent, but the other not, purely on the basis of timing? One side pretends that they have the solution, and the other pretends that they don't believe it's happening.

Ach, it was only the league cup.

No, I'm equating calling people cunts for the way they vote with people who criticise addicts who are sold their vice. In other words, I'm criticising the caller of cunts. Although, I could extrapolate it further and criticise myself for criticising you for being drawn into the pathetic "them and us" game so completely that you think that "they" are cunts. Frankly I find it strange that people have such adverse reactions to the outcomes of democracy. Surely if you believe in democracy as a system then you understand that's what you're signing up to? Because what you appear to be saying is that these people are cunts naturally, and when given the opportunity to vote for a cunt, those natural cunts vote for him. There is no room for people having been manipulated, misunderstood, tricked, taken in by false promises etc, they are simply unadulterated cunt. In which case, do you believe that there's some sort of magic cunt accumulator, whereby a single cunt will vote for Trump, but a mass of cunts would vote for Harris? Otherwise, why would you be so surprised by the results of democracy that you'd start calling people cunts? Personally, and to quote a famous man, I think there's great cunts on both sides.

He's overweight and eats cheeseburgers for breakfast. He's not got eight years in him.

Why? Because they didn't vote democrat? I'd be intrigued to hear where your virtuous boundaries begin and end. Where do you draw the line when labelling someone a cunt (in this case, you appear to be labelling @OrlandoDon, who has literally just posted inferring he voted for Trump, one)? For example, does supporting someone who continues to support and enable a genocide make you a cunt? What about supporting someone who pretends that perpetual economic growth is not only possible, but desirable, without the slightest concern for future generations? Or supporting someone who takes donations for corporations and billionaires in return for favourable policy? Would those people be cunts? No, of course not, because by that point you'd have just been choosing arbitrary moral red lines in a childish game. If you accept that politics is just one giant exercise in marketing, PR and propaganda, then you're effectively just measuring the degree to which people can be persuaded. Thus call Trump supporters cunts is the equivalent of calling a gambling addict a cunt, or the obese person who can't walk past the special offers at the till.

You could be right. I expect a lot of it has to do with partisanship though, especially in the US, which is incredibly polarised. There'll be plenty of democrats pointing to sustained economic growth and modest wage rises as evidence that it has been a vast improvement on Trump, who oversaw huge deaths during COVID (not my argument). To me, it just highlights the ridiculous nature of society's metrics, which are largely beyond the control of the average politician and president (or prime minister), such as economic growth and inflation. You basically form a view of how things are going based on what team you support - seeing what you want to see. It's a system that, globally, is failing, with the general public just spectators being tricked into playing the meaningless voting game. It's on a downward spiral that is beyond the control of someone like Trump (or the democrats). Life for the average American will not improve under Trump, they won't be able to point to a single policy of his (unless it's targeted, specific to a small group) that has improved their lives beyond the margin, but he may give them the illusion of improvement as he clearly did for many last time round. The perfect illustration of the system at play, is the supposed polar opposite positions taking place in the US and the UK. The UK has freed itself from under the boot of the Tories, while the yanks have ditched one old and senile guy. Yet if the system brings growth to the West, then it'll be because of both sides. If inflation falls then it's because of the "leftist" (there's nothing left about Starmer) policy in the UK and the right wing approach of Trump. What I hope the Trump presidency brings is the final realisation that they're not opposites, just as socialism and capitalism aren't, they are both exactly the same thing. I don't hold out much hope, I expect we'll back to the same "my billionaires are better than yours" shitfest we have today in 4 or 8 years time.

Trump is an immensely popular character in the US. He won because of that.

Four more years..... That's a lot of cheeseburgers.

Not that you're specifically saying that VAR should intervene, if it was a foul throw and the linesman didn't spot it, then VAR can't intervene. They don't adjudicate on the ball returning to play, hence they couldn't pick us up on whether the ball was still moving against the jambo scum.

Go on, write him off. Join us. It's cathartic.

Well no, we've got a backup right back. Milne. Surely priority is based on how good the player is? Milne is better at right back than McGarry is at left back. By a considerable distance. Regardless of whether it is his natural position or not. In my opinion, left back is more of a priority than right back because our left back backup is the shittest of the two. Although, personally, I don't think either is a massive priority, and would be more comfortable with a striker and a wide player.

Yes

Ambrose has looked fairly dogshite every time he's played, since before and after his only, important, goal. He fits the position he's been asked to play well, and we have a team that are able to carry a player, but he brings virtually nothing to the team.

I think the question is whether McGarry at left back is better than Milne at right back, despite it not being his natural position. I think McGarry's natural position is somewhere in the North Sea. Also, MacKenzie is more injury prone (although Devlin is running himself into the ground at present!).

All our goalies are shite, Gordon aside, so he gets in by default. Always looked okay for the u21s when I've watched them. We should give him ten minutes when we're three up, just incase he turns into a world beater, as he was born in England.

It's not as simple as just paying them. There are a lot of other issues. Many of the players have other jobs or university studies to work around. Women's football isn't the life changing career that men's can be, in terms of money made. You need maybe 50% of your squad on board with making the move to full-time, plus the young ones coming through being aware that they'll be expected to be full-time too. That's difficult to achieve and plan and takes time. It doesn't help when three of your best players who would have been likely to have helped start the process moved to hearts in the summer. The other problem is that the part time team is probably a loss maker as it is, and the crowds probably wouldn't sustain a full-time team in the medium term. I guess you have to compare it to the decision to go full-time for a team like Cove or Peterhead. It probably wouldn't be viable without a lot of unsustainable financial backing. In terms of individual players, they had guys like Rory McAllister playing for them who themselves refused the step to professional level, which will be similar to many of the women at the Dons. Of course, you can have mix of professional and semi professional players, which will be the balance going forward perhaps.

I meant to go today, but my daughter didn't fancy it, lazy shite. There's a big gulf between full time and part time in the women's league, it's basically two leagues. Booth will be judged on his games against the bottom half of the league.

Or he's just gash.

I couldn't read it. Must need a better phone.

I don't think that Thelin will be bringing in his own players though. Maybe one or two, but I think the recruitment situation is fairly settled. He'll be buying for his system, of course, but actually the guys that are here seem to fit remarkably well into it already. The question of depth is an interesting one, because being in a position to be able to rest 5 or 6 players only really comes when you've got the additional European fixtures. Otherwise, you've got players sitting out whole fortnights. Personally, I think we've got the squad size just about perfect for the campaign, but maybe quality can improve in the backup positions. It's going to be a difficult balance to keep everyone happy though. Especially beyond January when there isn't generally a massive fixture backlog. As you mention, Gueye and Polvara returning will be good for us.