Ghoat

I wonder that as well - When did it come so polar and contentiously inflexible? I'd personally say around Clinton's lame duck period, when the Lewinsky shit started, and then the contentious result of Gore-Bush in 2000. Since then it seems that bi-partisanship and reaching across the isle has become akin to "caving in, which is absurd when you think about it. Both of CA senators are blue, do they not have any responsibility to the 1/3 of the state (10-12 million people) who are red? Texas has 2 red senators, what about the 10-12 million people in the state who lean blue? "We have a mandate" - bullshit, you have a simple majority. It's sad that it's becoming more of all-or-nothing by party lines than "how do we get something done". The media and social media are enthusiastic catalysts to the political rancor.

Here is the current state of US "news" from today. Some MSNBC chick tweets that Fox News isn't going to air the Mueller hearings. This is false, they are actively promoting it (so I hear I can't say I've been watching). Eventually she says she was just kidding and removes the tweet. Every bedwetting conspiracy nut does it bother to even consider that it might not be true and it's retweeted as further proof of a right-wing Trump conspiracy. Stephen King apparently tweeted about it, it was retweeted something like seven thousand times. it doesn't matter that it was never true now it's been repeated so many times by people, many who who allegedly have credibility and swallowed as gospel because it fits the narrative of a certain political agenda. And then of course all the right-wing fanatics jump on board offering this as "proof" that's the left in the traditional media are corrupt, Anti-Trump and there's no point in listening to anything that you can say. And Obama was born in Africa. Fox News is now covering it - I'm unsure if the CNN's or other outlets are saying anything. Think about that for a second... A person who has some credibility, but no accountability, goes on Twitter and basically just flat out tells a lie. It could be someone for the left or someone for the right because God knows both have done it - it's not a monopoly. It's widely disseminated and becomes gospel because it's been repeated so many times, and now you have news channels who is reporting as news what the other news channels/ political rivals are doing and saying... Not reporting news. Twitter drives the news that is reported seemingly as much as world events do. political hacks from the left and from the right who have no accountability and do not even have to pretend to be objective, make up flat-out lies and their respective lap dogs eat it up and force the other side to respond. How in the fuck is anybody supposed to actually understand what is happening and then form their own opinion on it. "Twitter makes you stupid" - Josef Stalin, 1937 "The Russians hacked me" - Genghis Khan, 1216

I'm not sure if the better response is "He's only good because of the other 10 at City" or "Roma would never sell him to an English club. Celtic maybe, England never" Reader's choice

Sadly the same in the US. There is no place on TV to just watch "the news" You could watch CNN then Fox, and assume it must have been different news days. Not on HOW it was "reported" but IF it was even mentioned. Annoying AF

We have the "Senegalese Messi" (Niasse), so we've got that going for us.

*Holding towel tightly*

McKennie is an great example of our system getting better - as is Tyler Adams. But both cases, when it was time for "finishing school", where did they go? Our better prospects, and in some cases players, are under 21 in Europe. The problem, IMO, is the players we have that come up in our system are mid-20's before they ever get their call up and even then have limited experience against world class players/leagues.

I find it hard to keep up with our youth teams, and I only caught one game of the U-20WC, the 2-1 loss in the quarterfinals to Ecuador. The best player I saw on the pitch was the RB bombing forward for crosses, and knocking wingers off the ball or making tackles/blocks in the box. I texted a buddy across town that, and asked him "who the hell is the Dest kid?" Then the Gold Cup started, the WWC was going, I went on holiday...and I forgot about him. Our system is improving, but mostly the best prospects we have are the ones who have stayed out of the US system, or left in their teens for Europe. And frankly a lot of the dual-nationals who aren't quite good enough for their "home" country are better or have better potential than what's in our existing "domestic pool". Alas, if we had a large military presence in Brazil, we might have already won a World Cup or two by now Thanks for sharing that Romey, good read on the kid and his story.

That's 3 strikers. Abraham is a big kid with potential, but only has one year in the EPL and not many goals - yet. Batman has been "the next big thing" for a few years now, but hasn't really impressed much in the EPL, 5 goals at Palace last year Actually has more goals for Belgium. Giroud is a big proper target man, but he's also 32 years old and only scored twice in league play last year. That's 7 EPL goals between the three of them last year., even though Abraham had a great year at Villa in the Championship. Even if you go back one season prior, they only have 13 (I think) league goals between them. So roughly 20 in 2 seasons. Walcott, DCL and Richarlison had 24 league goals last year between them. I'd like to see more firepower come in, but looking at those three against the three we currently have, I'll take my chances with ours.

I think the Spurs move up a spot to round out the top 3, and Chelsea drops into 4th. Of the others that finished ahead of us, I think ManU is a dumpster fire and will tumble, and I think Wolves will struggle with the additional games and travel. If we can build from the end of the season and have some luck, we could overtake Arsenal and finish 5th, and that would be a good year for me. Finishing 6th with a Euro spot would be an "acceptable" season. Anything worse would be a disappointment for me. Behind us, I think Leicester City and *gasp* West Ham are the threats. As of today. WIth 2.5 weeks in the window (Chelsea aside), who knows what the other top ten may add or lose, us included. ManU will likely be the most volatile, but they could still drop $100M in the squad and get a couple guys that tear the EPL up. Pulisic may be a flop and leave Chelsea with a creative hole that drops them out of the top 6. Everybody above us has the rigors of Europe in addition to anything else they have going on, so that should be an advantage for us when the season starts. I'd like to jump on Mark's 4th place bandwagon, it's not inconceivable, but for me 5th is the reasonable ceiling. With looming transfers and possible injuries to any team, this entire post could be absurd by the time we get to Selhurst on the 10th.

And I'm the opposite. The private sector isn't perfect and needs some restraints, but feel it does a much better job of providing than the public sector in most cases. Instances have proved that wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, but my overall "philosophy" remains. Which is why I am (fiscally) conservative. If it makes you feel any better, my father was a democrat all his life. He was a disabled vet (Navy) from 1964 until he passed in 2011, and he absolutely hated Reagan *gasp*. My Mom has spent most of her life between nursing and academia, has a Phd in American Studies, is a nurse practitioner in the VA hospital system with almost 20 years. She's been in Bentonville/Fayetteville a decade and is pissed Hillary hasn't come back as Governor. At 70 years old, yes, she owns a pussyhat! Needless to say, I've had a lot of "wrong influences" from them....but over time I've realized some of them aren't as wrong as I originally believed. Or perhaps my thinking was only right "ish".

Can't really disagree. I think there is a large segment of voters who are just unable or unwilling to look beyond the surface. They want to blame everything on a single issue, real or perceived, because that' doesn't require thinking - let alone challenging your own beliefs. And politicians of both sides absolutely know that and count on it. The right - "Membership of United Steel Workers is dropping and job are lost because of the unions and democrats are anti business" The left "Job are lost becausing the republicans are anti-union, trade tarrifs and tax breaks" Neither side mentions there is entire world out there, where other counties have their changes in supply, demand, economies that fluctuate, volatility in other markets that have direct or indirect impact, and changes in technology. Something I read this morning, actually after reading your first post and googling a bit, is that what used to take 10.5 labor hours to produce in the steel industry now takes 1.5 labor hours due to technology changes and more efficient methods and equipment. So demand would have to increase almost 10 fold from 20 years ago to have the same amount of industry jobs and union membership. No politician, policy, tariffs, taxes or union can "fix" that. I'd like to think if there was a magic "perfect" answer, both parties would accept the obvious and follow it, and adjust as is needed. Until then it's theories or some combination of theories that is "fact" or "myth" depending on who is expounding it. Ditto for taxes, foreign policy etc....

That is a fundamental difference you and I have. And we probably won't ever agree on, and that's ok really. While I am far from red through and through, I am more conservative on the fiscal/pro-business/limited government side. Socially, I disagree with most of the GOP. Ergo, I am "anti-union" So to me being against unions as in the above example you gave doesn't mean opposing the workers and their livelihood - the opposite in fact. (There is the fundamental difference) In my opinion a union (as an organization, not member level) is a lot like a government agency - it's primary goal is it's own survival. For a government agency/bureaucracy it means it's funding/budget, and for a union it means membership and dues. A decline in either means a reduction of influence, power, relevancy - not sure the best word, but I think you know what I'm trying to say. I think both types of organizations do indeed try to work for their constituency they exist for, but their own survival is paramount. Not bad people, evil people, or anything like that - it's just the nature of the organization itself. Again, that's simply my viewpoint on what I have seen, hear, know, observe etc, nothing more. But I will also say this - while I'm not how necessary union are overall today, we owe a lot, if not almost everything to them. They absolutely built this country, protected workers from horrible working conditions by terrible business owner and robber barons. They provided a voice, protection and safety to the most vulnerable exploited workers that were helpless otherwise. Many of the "norms" the American worker (white or blue collar) take for granted today exist because labor unions stood up protected workers from exploitation by business owners when no one else did. If anyone on the right can't see or understand that, they are totally ignorant about US history. Anyway, again, just my perspective, but I didn't want to throw a "union diatribe" into the previous post about swing state voters.

You are correct, Alabama has been red for a very long time. IMO, often way too red. Point in case, Roy Moore is running for Senate (again). The fact he even he even has people to support that effort is absurd. If he should get the GOP nomination by sheer bible-thumping lunacy, I will vote democrat (Doug Jones). I voted for Doug Jones over Moore last election, and the only thing I will do different this time is load my yard with Doug Jones signs. I digress... The unions have been solid base for democrats for as long as I can remember, as like you mentioned, that's a lot of jobs and industry in the rust belt that are swing states. I'm not sure before 2016 those states have gone mostly red since Reagan. To your point on the rust belt suffering, one of the biggest hit has been to the union jobs, and the unions. So Obama appealed to the unions and got their support - much easier for a dem to do successfully than a repub. Things didn't improve a whole lot. So in 2016 along comes Trump, and he doesn't appeal to the unions, he appeals directly to the workers. Basically pointing out that the people they counted on to help them hadn't succeed. But he was going to fight cheap Chinese steel that was taking their jobs, protect their jobs (2 huge hot buttons) and bring back American manufacturing jobs..Make American Great Again. Say what you want about the slogan, but I think that resonated loudly in the rust belt, where so many jobs were either lost, or didn't provide the same standard of living it did 20 years ago. I don't think it because they are ignorant or racist (not that it doesn't exist), because if they are/were, why did they vote for an African-American candidate (running against a white male) the previous 2 elections? I think it was simple economics - household economics. If what you have had for 8 years hasn't changed your livelihood, and you have one candidate who is offering a similar thing but promising different results, and another candidate who is proposing an entirely different approach to help you...hell, lets give it a shot. Right message at the right time to the right people that resonated. Just as the simple brilliant "It's the economy stupid" that Bill Clinton's campaign used, and George Bush (Dad) had no counter for, and got crushed. That being said, if those people don't see a difference come 2020- and I don't mean the stats that both parties will use to make their case - but a difference at the household level, they will leave Trump in droves and get behind the democrat and unions again in a blue landslide. IMO of course.

Is he dominantly right-rooted, or can he use his left?

I'm not sure you could get that brush much broader Mark lol I would agree with you that those who are white racists, or supremacist or of that ilk, will support Trump. They will support whoever the GOP candidate is frankly, regardless of his ideology - no different that racists of color (yes they exist) or anarchist-type groups and individuals will support whatever candidate the democrats have. I'm not singling you out as a personal attack, at all - this has been put forth, subtly or overtly from the left since summer/fall of 2016, especially post-election. However, to assume all, or a significant percentage, of the 60+ million people who voted for Trump last election and/or support him are simply racist, uneducated or just plain stupid is daft. It would be no different than suggesting all, or a significant percentage, of those who will support/vote the democratic candidate are members of Antifa, supporting anarchy, violence and beating the hell out of anyone they disagree with in the name of free speech....

Maybe he knows he is a fullback, and attackers are the ones to shoot?

Where have you found to look at him? All I am reading is Omar hustles, and just misses. Nice control by Omar, hits woodwork etc lol

please

Not often, we usually go with "fish wrap"

Take those two and toss in Sandro, and we have invested 55M or so in outlay and 300k-ish a week in striker wages for 5 or 6 goals per season

For a squad player, that has 2-3 years in the tank? That seems more a Walsh strategy than Brands

If we're going to buy a striker for what amounts to a 2 year stop-gap, do we prefer the 30+ Spaniard or the 30+ Croatian?

Nope, just wanted you to understand my perspective. As in "ok, I get where you're coming from - I don't agree - but I get it". And yes, I would agree on the pond differences on patriotism, they are manifested in very different ways. Not better/worse, just different. Lets not forget, we're still kinda new, you have pubs that predate our nation by 500 years! Tradition really. Probably somewhat ties into Mike's point about cross pond differences.

That's where we have a different opinion. For you accepting or declining is a political decision that you would determine on the party currently holding the office. For me, it should transcend that. If you are the face of the National Team, and one of the main slogans that is used is "One Nation, One Team" and you are collectively invited to be honored in your nation's capitol, by the head of the executive branch to the Oval Office, or Rose Garden (something 99.9% of Americans will never be invited to do), you go. Even if the current occupant often is an infantile douche (and he is), it's not about you, it's not about him - you are going to be recognized for all of us who supported you, it's for us too. It's not tacit approval of the current occupant or his policies, or it shouldn't be. The Trump's. AOC's and Schumer's are politicians, they will politicize a ham sandwich - don't be the ham sandwich. To the land of the free/their right question - I say yes, of course they have that right. I'd also say that just by having a right doesn't mean it should always be exercised because it can be. That applies to every right and every individual. I would assume that you would agree with that in the macro sense, though we may disagree on the micro. I'm saying there is a time and a place, and I don't think this is it - which is MY opinion. That was the original question, and that's my thoughts I am not sure if that is a cultural difference on how we view/celebrate our national teams, or simply a difference in viewpoint - or some of both. It doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa. In this case, I'm miffed at all involved. Can't I/we just enjoy celebrating the athletic accomplishments without it becoming a political shitshow like everything else seemingly does?