nyblue23

Higher in the league... just 30% with us. Was 34% with Watford and 38% with Hull.

We’re now tied first with 11 in the league.

Garbage.

Richarlison doing very well tracking back today. Playing the same game he showed us in the first few matches this season.

Good thing Gomes can’t shoot.

Has Walcott even had a touch yet?

Stupid stupid stupid.

Haven’t lost in the last 7 with him refereeing amazingly.

Incredibly uninspiring, but at least it’s a lineup with a good deal of experience. I think I feel alright about it. Would like to see Lookman come on for Walcott early in the second half if we need goals.

Different opponents. Huddersfield are total shit and Southampton played with a bit of quality.

Thought of that option, too. Gomes was pretty useless in the Huddersfield match minus the first 10 minutes or so of the second half. Still think the weekend might be too soon for Gana, but I’m in agreement with you that I don’t think the saga will affect his mentality much for the rest of the season past a week or two.

I don’t necessarily disagree in this case. Gana probably needs a game or two out to sort his head and Davies deserves another start.

I’d edited the example to make it an actual strawman the moment I clicked send. Regardless, you just did the same thing you accused me of by not actually refuting the majority of my last post (I.e., the majority of the population doesn’t want a wall, a wall won’t be effective, research indicates that undocumented immigration is a net gain) and just restating your premises. Circular reasoning on the money bit. A previous unlimited appetite for debt does not warrant a continuing appetite for debt. Twenty-two billion is still a massive sum of money that could be allocated toward that debt (what a thought!) or toward something actually useful and/or effective. How you could disagree that the immigration problems of the U.S. and Australia are vastly different is beyond me. Immigration is central to many political issues (saying most is not at all demonstrably true), but that does not negate that our two situations are different. Trump is losing the battle right now tactically. Americans were livid about the shutdown and his approval ratings dropped as a result of his willingness to own that shutdown. Democrats are not dying on any hills as a result of the wall, and they’ve been showing a willingness lately to compromise in some ways without giving $22 billion for a border wall. As far as the refusal to engage with the concerns of a large part of the electorate - the left in this country has been trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform for decades. It’s not a problem that has been ignored. Much of the worst damage that could be done has already been done by electing Trump and watching him dismantle all sorts of arms of government. Most of the animosity towards immigrants in the first place in this country has been driven by the right’s insistence in the xenophobic rhetoric that poor socioeconomic conditions for those in white rural America exist due to Mexicans stealing their jobs (for the most part, they’re not), and that undocumented immigrants are violent criminals (they commit crime at far lower rates than U.S. citizens). That does not get fixed by building a wall.

Also, I lived 15 miles from the border in San Diego for a couple years and in Los Angeles for 6, and my entire family lives in Texas, so get the fuck out of here with your New York “progressive echo chamber” bullshit.

I know what devil’s advocate means, my friend. If I googled devil’s avocado I would find “punching a woman’s vagina until it turns green,” which I don’t think is very helpful. You’re not effectively playing devil’s advocate either, because your premises are this: 1. Trump wants it. 2. Forty-percent of the population wants it. 3. It would cost between $22 billion (estimates of an incompetent liar) and $70 billion in tax-payer money, which you say is a drop in the bucket (it’s not). 4. In your vastly different country with vastly different immigration problems, a right-leaning party used immigration policy to fuck over the environment and economy. 5. It may serve as a minor deterrent for some portion of those trying to immigrate without documents. These points have been addressed. 1. & 2. Trump may want it, but legislators do not, and nor does the majority of the public. Those that do have subscribed to a xenophobic rhetoric that has been fear-mongered into them. 3. Even $22 billion is a lot of money if allocated for infrastructure, education or healthcare. It may be a drop in the hat of a budget that spends over $100 million on a single fighter jet, but most of us aren’t super keen on that either, and we’ve all known since childhood that two wrongs don’t make a right. 4. It’s not a straw-man to point out a false analogy. Australia is much different than the U.S. and faces significantly different immigration problems stemming from the differences in geography, history, race, economic opportunity, mythology, historical political intervention in neighboring countries, etc. etc. etc. A straw-man in this context would be to say “Chach, you’re a fucking Australian moron so anything you say about a wall doesn’t matter.” It’s not a straw-man to say, “Chach, Australian and American immigration are not analogous; therefore, your comparison falls short.” 5. It won’t, which has been borne out through the history of physical barriers in other countries. It’s also not a significant enough deterrent because it’s not even the largest method of illegal immigration, which has been pointed out by numerous people. These arguments don’t even touch on the fact that there is plenty of research that would indicate undocumented immigrants are actually a net gain on the American economy and we might not be so wise to try keeping them out in the first place. None of this is virtue signaling. It’s logic. Maybe try employing it before being so smug about your devil’s avocado.

To be fair, you said devils avocado and I had no idea what the fuck that could mean. Forty percent is not a majority for one (nor is the U.S. a country where majority matters in most situations anyway), and comments that accuse someone of wanting to be “right rather than effective” are both a bit haughty given your proximity to the situation, and also lend a little to the idea that you think a wall is a pragmatic compromise. People who actually live here are telling you that it is anything but a pragmatic compromise, and the reasons for the rise of populism very likely differ in nearly every way from those of a country with a completely different legacy of immigration than this one.

You misunderstand so much about American politics that it’s hard to give any perspective. I honestly don’t mean this to sound dickish, but maybe you should experience living in a country that actually has a physical border that is not an ocean before you start talking about the effectiveness of one. You've also just been given quite a bit of research into the effectiveness of a wall, and given that I live here and this has been an issue for a while, I can point to the fact that not only is physical border crossing not the biggest means of immigration in the U.S., but border walls have rarely worked anywhere in the world, and yet they continue to be used as a rhetorical tool in countries around the world. You can have an orderly immigration system without enforcing a physical barrier. The left in America understands this, as do the vast majority of people who live along the Mexican border (I did for a few years). The wall is a rhetorical tactic driven by fear mongering and xenophobia, and if you lived in this country, you would probably understand that. Also, if $70 billion doesn’t matter to you, I’ve got a lot to ask you for. That could literally be the difference in funding for universal health care and the broken system we have now. It does fucking matter.

So now Gana is the reason that all the personnel around him keeps changing. Beautiful. Every time I think you can’t dig deeper to find something more absurd...

Thank god.

To be fair, it was a definite penalty, which makes it even better that they didn’t get it.

I figured they were but I’ll still hold a petty grudge.

Just peeped his twitter and he congratulated Murray Wallace on beating us. That’ll be a big no from me on his involvement in the national team.

Two of their goals yesterday came from set pieces, so that doesn’t bode well.

So now we’re disagreeing with facts. Fun.

I almost expected to see him come on and play LB as opposed to Kenny. Or him at RB and move Coleman to LB. Neither would have been great admittedly. Also wondered if he would sub on for Richarlison at the end instead of DCL, as the last few times DCL was brought on as an outlet in the final few minutes he hasn’t really held up a single ball.