Isaiah

Ancelotti in?

All votes should be public. That way, people like Donald Trump won't get elected.

 

Right, we need to bully and shame people into voting the 'right way', don't we?

Donald Trump was elected precisely because people tried every method to publicly bully, cajole, humiliate, intimidate and shame people into voting for Hillary. When pollsters accosted people in the street and asked them "Will you be voting for the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic deplorable nationalist Donald Trump, or will you instead vote for Hillary Clinton?", people of course said "Err...fuck, I guess I'm voting for Hillary!" And therefore, every single poll predicted Hillary as a dead cert to win.

And what happened on election night? Those people voted for Trump. Why? Because even in America, the one place on the face of the entire planet where people can still feel free and safe to say what they really think is in the voting booth, because there is no braying and baying mob ready to tear them apart for their opinion.

At some point the media may actually realise what is plain to everyone paying attention: that hurling insults and bullying doesn't actually work in a proper democracy (not matter how much peteO may want to see people have their right to vote taken away if they dare to have an unpopular opinion).

Off topic, I know, and whatever. It's all just a game COYB, etc.

 

Also fair enough, but if you don't want to be challenged then just make your vote and don't revisit the thread.

 

 

You didn't phrase this as a question but I'll treat it as one anyway, and I promise you it'll be my last word on this subject: the answer is that the many discussion threads on here exist for people to express their opinions and have them "challenged". That's what discussion threads are for. Whereas polls, in any facet of life, do not exist for that reason. A poll is where people give their opinion or vote without the expectation of having to explain or justify it. Historically, the reason for making polls and votes anonymous is to ensure a higher degree of accuracy when it comes to what people actually think.

It's a very minor thing ("just a game" as you wrote earlier), but since you're the admin of the site, I suppose you won't mind some user feedback, and that's all I'm doing here. There are a couple of extremely tense, abrasive, belligerent posters on here who tend to turn many threads into tedious online slanging matches, and if my memory serves it was an appeasement to them, and their desire to know which "fucking idiot troll" voted for whom, that you made the decision to switch to public votes. Do so if you want, it's your site, but anyway these have been my thoughts on it. I give it two or three poll rounds before the usual suspects start demanding PMs to confirm fight arrangements.

The reason people don't want to explain their vote is because of other weasels who want to tell them they're wrong when I'm fact they also have no idea if their choice is better or not,mainly because most parties are full of utter shite.

 

You have an opinion, express it if you want and if someone tells you to justify it don't, because their opinion means as much to you as yours does to them

Well written. I'm also very wary of pete0's idea that people with 'racist' views shouldn't have a vote. Not because racism is acceptable but because how else are you to gauge how fucked up your country is in danger of becoming if not by seeing the alarming popularity of racist parties? But, as implied, those issues probably aren't for this thread so I'll leave it at this.

Because of you can't explain your vote or if it is a racist reason etc you shouldn't have one.

So 1) again, using this logic do you think all political votes should be made public, so we can weed out the racists and other people who 'voted wrong', and 2) what to do with people who can explain their vote but simply don't feel the desire or need to?

I know in this case your method would work in my favour, but for me if you're not willing to justify your vote you shouldn't have one.

Do you feel the same way about voting in political elections? Because if so, to whom must I be "willing to justify" my vote?

Why can a person not simply have an opinion on something and prefer to keep his reasoning to himself?

 

I still forgot to make votes "public" .

I haven't been here long so it's probably not my place to offer an opinion on this, but anyway - votes shouldn't be made public. Why should people feel pressure to explain or justify their choices for MOTM? There are people on this forum who take certain parts of football crazily seriously, and who get bent out of shape over opposing opinions. Why offer up yet another way for that to happen? I was sometimes the only person to vote for Rom last season, which drew responses of "what fucking idiot troll voted for Lukaku?", and I wasn't trolling, I had my own reasons for doing so based on the game I saw. But once those replies began, I stopped voting in the MOTM threads because it just wasn't worth pissing people off over something so trivial.

If people want to say who they voted for, then fine, but if not, why should it be public? You risk turning certain people off voting (I mean people who don't come here for the confrontational exhanges). Just my opinion. Great forum by the way.

Good draw, happy with it. Not an easy group. I'd far rather we play these kinds of teams than labour our way to winning the group by playing teams from the arse-end of Kazakhstan and east Ukraine, crapping on our league form in the process, only to then get knocked out the first time we face a team anyone's heard of in the last 16. This is a proper test of where we are (at least Lyon and Atalanta are, don't know much about the 4th team). Short travel times and teams who aren't walkovers, it's exactly what I wanted.

Everyone was afraid of getting Hoffenheim, but Liverpool just brushed them aside in the CL qualifiers. They mullered them. Not to be controversial by drawing comparison to them, but that's the level we should be at with the players we have. We shouldn't be struggling to beat these kinds of teams, not with our wealth, players, and relative managerial experience. If we can't easily get out of this group, then we're not winning the tournament.

I was following a Spurs forum yesterday for their draw, and I loved what I saw. All the Utd, City, Chelsea and Liverpool fans were laughing at them, saying they've got a shit draw and were going to get knocked out, whereas the actual Spurs fans were delighted, because playing the likes of Real Madrid is exactly the test they wanted to see their team face. I loved that mentality, rather than seeing City fans rejoice over getting 'soft' teams to play. What kind of 'sport' mentality is that? You're happy that your team of a billion pounds has been gifted an easy passage to the knockout rounds? Anyway I digress...happy with the draw, and I'll be at the Atalanta away leg.

Does anyone know which 'pot' we're in for the group stage draw?

Some more strong teams have gone out tonight (Ajax, Brugge, Fenerbahce, Legia Warsaw, PAOK). Really happy we got through this tie, and (it's looking like) without any injuries. .

DCL. Holgate was great too, minus the poor header. Very solid core of young English players we've put together here.

Nobody an obvious choice this time. Gave it to Pickford, because he did everything he needed to.

Only person I can't find anything good to say about is Williams

He did one of the best cross-field passes I've ever seen an Everton player do.

Idiots. Kick the team out of the competition, no need to play the return leg for Everton, smooth passage to the group stage.

Gylfi or Siggy, what's everyone's favoured nickname for this guy going to be?

My heart wanted to vote for Rooney but my head has told me to give it to Pickford. Today must have been a very nervous occasion for him, making his debut after such a huge price tag, but he performed flawlessly. I have a very good feeling about him, it's early days but I think we've got an absolute gem there, and at a price that will end up being a bargain.

he's missed every friendly

 

We should knock another million off the price because they've deprived him of match fitness for the start of the season. Take the piss and bid 39 million.

I like Rom and wish he was still here, but to be fair...he did miss an absolute sitter just before that, and even the BBC just wrote sarcastically that "even he couldn't miss" the chance he eventually converted.

I think he had quite a bad game to be honest (as did almost all the United players).

Some very decent teams (PSV Eindhoven, Freiburg, Bordeaux, Gent) already eliminated by 'minnow' teams. Just goes to show these early rounds aren't walkovers.

I'm too lazy to look up all the complicated seeding rules, so if anyone follows that stuff, could you post a small list of the toughest teams we could face in the next round? Thanks.

The keeper is the weak link yet we've had no shots in target. Need to fire off a few skidders from distance.

Decent result. Nick a goal at their place and they'll need 3 to go through.

Ah, fair enough, sorry!

 

yep but they aren't mid season, they are in preseason like us, so that benefit had we played the norwegian team is lost.

That's not a benefit in my opinion. It's better to play another team in their pre-season, because then they're as rusty as we are. It becomes our out-of-practice 11 against their out-of-practice 11 (and frankly on paper we piss on them), whereas playing a team already up and running is more difficult.

That's why I'm happy we have such a 'difficult' opening to the season. I'd much rather play Man City 2nd game of the season than, for example, 12th, by which time all their new signings will have gelled and everyone will be into a rhythm. The first 5 or 6 games of a season are almost a lottery, with crazy results all over the place.

Game over. Slovakia it is. No pushovers clearly, but if we don't beat them over 2 legs, we don't deserve to be in the competition.