Adam The God

Of course. Why would everyone's vote counting matter in a democracy? You call the electoral college a "very good system", but provide no evidence to back that up. Almost as if your opinion is worth more than everyone else's and facts alone. But that is the MO of the far right, as is descending into name calling, instead of trying to have a proper debate. For a guy who is one of the most thoughtful footballing observers, you clearly have no time for it in your politics.

Apparently this still needs to be debated. In the early 1960s, the conservative party of today were known as the Democrats and vice versa, but the party affiliations flipped, though the people remain the same. The passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the catalyst to converting the Deep South from Democrats to the Republican Party. Pure ignorance. As for the electoral college, it's a ridiculous system. Amazingly, I believe it should be the popular vote. That is democracy and the undebatable truest reflection of what the people want. You don't place a higher importance on certain individuals' votes. That's not democracy. Democracy is - "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". If certain votes count more than others, you can't have a "system of government by the whole population", you have a government elected by a section of the population. Where people live shouldn't matter. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe GDP growth in urban areas is a good argument for keeping the college system. Every state has elected officials that should look out for the needs of their own constituency. If they fail this, that's the failure of those politicians, not the system. Whereas, the college system gives free shots to the South.

Thanks mate. Agreed. My only recollection of Cripps' first season was that he was dropped at some point and made no impact.

I'm going to guess it's Palace Cinema you're talking about. I love trying to see all the Best Picture noms before the ceremony, although I never watch the actual ceremony. I just get the results. I see one film a week without fail, sometimes two. Rarely see blockbusters, except for the very occasional Marvel, Star Wars or Bond. I usually bounce between Lido, the Classic, Southland, Chadstone, Nova, both Brighton cinemas and occasionally the Como. We're very lucky with the amount of indie cinemas these days. There's a bit of a resurgence in particular with Eddie Tamir's chain of Lido, the Classic and Cameo. The Lido and Nova are probably my favourites.

Amazon, right? Do you have a subscription? Or do you download it?

A good point then. I stand corrected, he was fit enough to play and didn't manage the stats of Oliver. Still, you could definitely argue the broken leg may have hampered his confidence.

So it is his fault that the Southern states are full of slave farmers? A lot more people in California and New York. The Electoral College is ridiculous. Even Trump himself wanted it gone at the last election.

But before or after he'd played games?

I feel like the public sentiment with regards to Bontempelli even at the start of last year was ridiculously unwarranted. I will admit he stepped up in finals, but before that he was massively overrated. Cripps didn't have a final to showcase his talents, so I think that argument is relatively unfair. But I can certainly see Oliver reaching Cripps' level. Cripps did nothing in his first year or so and then it clicked. Oliver came out and dominated his first game against GWS.

I'd argue on output Cripps is miles ahead of Bontempelli, but I like making outrageous statements.

Things couldn't be much worse than an Abbott or Turnbull led country. Look at the independent data from the OECD.

Completely agree. Aren't they both superb in that scene? Love Michelle Williams.

What twaddle. Yes, it should. You can't just go wherever you like as a country or would you be alright with the Chinese doing similar in Australia? No, you wouldn't because you want "China [kept] in check". And of course you think one of, probably the most, reputable news source in the world in the BBC, is struggling for relevance in your Post-Truth world. To the contrary, news sources' like the BBC are now more important than ever. And my "theory" as to why Russia might have done it is conjecture, yes, but the BBC did report that a Russian missile was fired from pro-Russian separatist-controlled land in Ukraine, while the Russians and even the pro-Russian separatists denied involvement. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing there. So when Russia and America become official allies in this fairyland of yours, what happens to America's alliance with Saudi Arabia and the conflict of interest with al-Assad and Putin? You don't think things through, Biff. Your worldview is incredibly simplistic and one dimensional. Typical of a neoliberal attitude. What I find ridiculous is you stand up for Russia on the one hand, because they're in bed with Trump, but on the other hand, you say they "disseminate misinformation". So you're saying the Russian's can't be trusted when they say something? You realise you're shooting yourself in the foot, RE: the MH17 discussion? Oh, and the argument was that the Kremlin was funding the Ukrainian separatists, not the Russian Army...

And FYI, I scored 17 on the Baron-Cohen test. I believe that's quite low...

Just got back from Hidden Figures. Really enjoyed it, although a bit Oscar-baity. Janelle Monae is gorgeous. Would probably put it at 5 or 6 on that above list. Definitely more enjoyable to me than Hell Or High Water and I probably enjoyed it more than Hacksaw Ridge too. What did you think of the scene in Manchester By The Sea that features on the poster? Amaaaaaaaaazing, IMO.

Fences, Moonlight and Hidden Figures I'm yet to see. All the African-American led pictures funnily enough. I'm seeing Hidden Figures tomorrow. My ratings of the rest: 1) La La Land 2) Arrival 3) Lion 4) Manchester By The Sea 5) Hacksaw Ridge 6) Hell Or High Water I'd say they're all terrific, with the exception of Hell Or High Water, which I found good in spots, but pretty forgettable almost immediately. The rest of the films really resonated with me at certain points. There is a scene in Manchester By The Sea, which is possibly one of the greatest scenes of all time. The acting, the direction, the dialogue. It creeps up on you and strangles you until you cry. Amazing stuff. In terms of the other films, I really liked Elle and as previously mentioned loved Nocturnal Animals. Haven't seen Jackie yet, which might have to wait now that it didn't get nominated for Best Pic. Allied was a taut espionage thriller and Florence Foster Jenkins was hilarious and touching. Rouge One was entertaining, so much so I saw it twice. Doctor Strange as interesting. And that's about it. I really hope Michelle Williams wins for Best Supporting Actress. She's under utilised, but bloody amazing in Manchester By The Sea. She and Joshua Jackson have done really well for themselves Post-Dawson's Creek.

A Second Cold War would be a financial and information-based "space race" between traditional Western powers and traditional Soviet bloc countries that have massive populations and rising middle classes. The whole point of the posturing in the English Channel was that Cameron (and I'm the last person to defend him) was put in an impossible position. In that situation, you simply have to let them sail down the channel. As usual you've pulled something out of your arse about false Muslim killings. I have no idea what you're referring too, but I suspect you've dropped a tab. As for your claims that it is Ukraine's fault for cutting Russia's gas supply, that has no basis in the current war in Donbass, which started basically because Putin saw an opportunity to exploit the unrest following Euromaidan. Have you been watching too much state sponsored RT? The rumours/theories at the time regarding MH17 were simply that Russia had sponsored the attack, in order that their forces enter the Ukraine without the Ukrainian government's permission. But apparently you think 'a drunk Russian soldier' is a more viable alternative. We'll agree to disagree there. And I'm not sure comparing the MH17 shooting to 9/11 is the smartest idea either, given just yesterday the BBC reported that the supposed separatists were in fact being funded by the Kremlin. This also backs up those rumours/theories above about MH17 being a state sponsored attack. But I do wonder what Vlad has, given his bravado and unpredictability. If he's anything like Trump, he's probably very, very emasculated when he looks down between his legs. Point stands though, he's an interesting character and undoubtedly a dictator.

What I find really interesting is how the conservative media has shifted perspectives on the Russians and particularly Putin himself. He's transformed from a power hungry, expansionist dictator to an alright guy that conservative Americans are happy for their country to cosy up to. I know he's white and Christian, but I hardly need mention the rivalry these two countries have shared for years. I was stunned when the Democrats barely bothered to attack Trump for his ties to Russia. And even more so, when he was attacked, that this seemed to have no effect on the constituency or Trump's popularity. In previous elections it would have been deemed political suicide for an American politician to take the stance Trump did with Putin. But in the age of INFOWARS, Breitbart and our liberal and conservative echo chambers, it failed to harm Trump. But what's more troubling is that the world seems to have a blindspot when it comes to the Russians. The entire Russian Navy sailed down the English Channel in October last year and that failed to make world news. That is insane, unauthorised posturing by Putin. And, by the way, if ever there was a more obvious signpost that we've entered the Second Cold War, I haven't seen one yet. Nevertheless, I find Putin a fascinating character, because his man Vladislav Surkov (his Chief Political Strategist) is playing from a very different playbook and the West don't quite know how to react to his theatre politics. I suspect this is in part why the Dems and the liberal media are holding back from attacking Putin. This, along with a little war that continues to rage on in Ukraine, which has gone conspicuously underreported for near on two years now, could also be a major reason for this stasis. Why? Because as was being muted back in 2014 at the beginning of the fighting in Donbass, and particularly after the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, Putin is and continues to financially back so-called "separatists" in the East of Ukraine. This is where according to the UN, close to 10,000 people have been killed (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=56110#.WJ2-k7Z94Xp). Putin is inching closer to taking territory from the Ukraine and all in the name of Mother Russia. What might explain the lack of reporting of this war is the chilling and uncomfortable parallels between this and the onset of World War 2. But this is where we come back to Trump and his administration, who are almost certainly copying pages from Surkov's political technologist playbook. One could argue that Trump and his people have even taken it a step further with their 'alternative facts', invented massacres and labelling of the mainstream media as fake news. However, there are more overt similarities between how Putin runs his regime and what Trump and his people are trying to do. If you distract everyone by creating such uncertainty (between what is real and what is fake), you can then waltz in and change a country during the night. And if Trump has his way in the courts, he may well be able to do just that.

He'll certainly speed up the rising American underclass. A team of billionaires. My poor American friends.

I believe the Third Way can work, but not neoliberalism. Unfortunately, the Third Way has unintentionally ushered in the rise of the Hard Right though, so it's not perfect. And Trump attacked the financial elites multiple times and you know it. He spent months telling everyone that Clinton spoke at a Goldman Sachs function and now he's hired someone from Goldman Sachs to be his economic advisor. #headinthesand

Agree that he's certainly not explosive, but he's dominant in the clinches like they were. Perhaps, I'm too young to remember just how good Williams was, but from my recollection, he didn't dominate clearances like Cripps does. Or like Judd did. Or like Ablett did. But I could be wrong.

Judd wasn't a great kick either, especially for goal, but he would just keep winning clearances. So dod Ablett in his prime. Cripps is the same IMO.

Cripps, every day of the week. Best kid in the league. Favourite non-MFC player. He's got that Ablett or Judd about him. He's practically unstoppable in the clinches. I hope he goes back to WA. I've already planted the seed in my Carlton mates head and he's already folded and said Cripps is gone. Haha. Hopeless. I think he'll stay at Carlton for the duration of his current contract, but if they continue to stagnate, a big club or WA will come knocking.

Why? The Right talks about The Welfare State and people leaching off hand outs etc. Trump is a person, despite all the money that was handed to him by his own father, who lived off government grants. He was in the right place at the right time. NYC was crumbling and the State of NY had to allow him to buy up random lots of land as the banks would no longer lend to the State. He was a leach and made his personal fortune (money that wasn't purely his father's) by sneaking in and being granted the biggest tax break in NY's history. And how do you propose he stimulates the US economy? * By keeping Ford in the country? So there are jobs there, but what happens when Ford hike the price of their vehicles to cover having to pay American labor costs? Americans then have to pay more for American made vehicles. Something the ever widening underclass can ill afford. * What happens if he goes to war? The economy always takes a hit during a war, but the private sector booms with private contracts dealt out to military contractors. So maybe. Hardly going to help Middle America who are looking to him for answers though. * Building a wall? Jobs. Pffh. They don't need a wall. The border security on the southern border is close to impregnable. He actually doesn't have any solutions to any problems. He just plays on peoples fears and outside of the wall, banning Muslims and forcing Ford to stay, he actually has no plan for the future of the US. Not for its economy anyway. As for draining the swamp? He continues to put GOP and corporate cronies in top positions of power. He knows he can't drain the swamp, nor does he want to. He just used it to get into power. See video above in post #36.

What are you talking about? He's never run a national economy. He had a massive tax free bank loan that started it all in NYC, before overseeing six business bankruptcies and starting over again - in the meantime, those that had equity in his businesses lost it all, each time he claimed bankruptcy. This was a guy that lived off government grants to finance his building empire (handed to him by his father) and finally took off when he managed to negotiate the biggest tax break in NY's history ($160mill). You can't run a country like a business. As we saw with Thatcher and Reagan, the corporate elite get richer, and an underclass develops. As to your point about stopping the flow of money out of the country, you realise he employs vast amounts of Muslims from multiple areas in the Middle East (those countries not included in his travel ban), so not quite true either.