Slightly :deviant: behaviour last night, watched the women's footy

[PSRB]

England thumped Scotland 6-0 and a couple of Arsenal ladies played well.

Did sort of remind me of watching Aldershot in the 80's but with better finishing.

[IUFG]

England thumped Scotland 6-0 and a couple of Arsenal ladies played well.

Did sort of remind me of watching Aldershot in the 80's but with better finishing.

no excuse for that. straight :redcard:

[PSRB]

no excuse for that. straight :redcard:

Surely some leniancy as we're in the inter-season lull?

[IUFG]

Surely some leniancy as we're in the inter-season lull?

Leniency? Leniency?

You're only making it worse for yourself.

[Monty92]

England thumped Scotland 6-0 and a couple of Arsenal ladies played well.

Did sort of remind me of watching Aldershot in the 80's but with better finishing.

I wonder if you spaffed your load at the exact same time as Rich.

[Pat Vegas]

England thumped Scotland 6-0 and a couple of Arsenal ladies played well.

Did sort of remind me of watching Aldershot in the 80's but with better finishing.

Lack of tackles puts me off.

[Burney]

Lack of tackles puts me off.

They're women, f. They can't help their lack of tackle.

[Burney]

I wonder if you spaffed your load at the exact same time as Rich.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's something actively un-sexy about women playing football.

[Monty92]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's something actively un-sexy about women playing football.

Is it the unavoidable shadow of the gender pay gap that looms over every game that kills it for you?

[Burney]

Is it the unavoidable shadow of the gender pay gap that looms over every game that kills it for you?

No. I think it's just that watching women performing what I cannot help but think of as an inherently male activity jams my sexy signals.

[Peter]

No. I think it's just that watching women performing what I cannot help but think of as an inherently male activity jams my sexy signals.

Isnt it just that they are **** at it?

I watched ten minutes and it looked like somebody had televised a pub game. The goalkeepers are appalling and the defending pretty bad. Also, nowhere near enough cheating and diving.

Women's cricket is also unwatchable.

Women are just **** at sport. The tennis is borderline watchable but then I don't like tennis.

[Burney]

Isnt it just that they are **** at it?

I watched ten minutes and it looked like somebody had televised a pub game. The goalkeepers are appalling and the defending pretty bad. Also, nowhere near enough cheating and diving.

Women's cricket is also unwatchable.

Women are just **** at sport. The tennis is borderline watchable but then I don't like tennis.

They had to bring the boundaries in for girl cricket. :hehe: Mind you, I remember watching it before they did and there were literally no boundaries ever. Jesus it was dull.

Women are smaller, slower, weaker, less aggressive, less co-ordinated and have poorer visual acuity and spacial awareness than men. Of course their bloody sports are rubbish compared to the male versions!

These are simply biological facts. Why is it even controversial to state this?

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

They're women, f. They can't help their lack of tackle.

They could always grow a pair?

[Peter]

They had to bring the boundaries in for girl cricket. :hehe: Mind you, I remember watching it before they did and there were literally no boundaries ever. Jesus it was dull.

Women are smaller, slower, weaker, less aggressive, less co-ordinated and have poorer visual acuity and spacial awareness than men. Of course their bloody sports are rubbish compared to the male versions!

These are simply biological facts. Why is it even controversial to state this?

Because women are also unreasonable ****s and have been convinced that they are as good (arguably better) as men at everything.

My Sunday team had a 20 minute kick about with a good women's team. They couldn't get near us. It was a joke.

[PSRB]

Because women are also unreasonable ****s and have been convinced that they are as good (arguably better) as men at everything.

My Sunday team had a 20 minute kick about with a good women's team. They couldn't get near us. It was a joke.

As I've said on here many times before, the only Women's sports that are just as enjoyable to watch as the Mens is Skiing (Downhill, Super G, Giant Slalom and Slalom), not the tricks stuff as they're just not powerful enough to pull of the properly cool stuff

[Burney]

Because women are also unreasonable ****s and have been convinced that they are as good (arguably better) as men at everything.

My Sunday team had a 20 minute kick about with a good women's team. They couldn't get near us. It was a joke.

Yes, unfortunately, people have become convinced that equality means ignoring demonstrable biological realities in favour of dogma.

And women always point to outliers as though they were the norm. "What about Serena Williams?', they'll say - ignoring the fact that a/ Serena Williams is a physical freak and b/ that even despite that freakery, she would lose to the top 100 male players.

[Burney]

As I've said on here many times before, the only Women's sports that are just as enjoyable to watch as the Mens is Skiing (Downhill, Super G, Giant Slalom and Slalom), not the tricks stuff as they're just not powerful enough to pull of the properly cool stuff

Yes, but with skiing, gravity is really doing all the hard yards as far as speed is concerned.

[Monty92]

Yes, unfortunately, people have become convinced that equality means ignoring demonstrable biological realities in favour of dogma.

And women always point to outliers as though they were the norm. "What about Serena Williams?', they'll say - ignoring the fact that a/ Serena Williams is a physical freak and b/ that even despite that freakery, she would lose to the top 100 male players.

Actually both Willams sisters got battered by the fella ranked 203 on the ATP circuit back in 1998. They had previously said they could beat any man ranked above 200, but after their meeting with reality they revised that number to 350.

[Peter]

Yes, unfortunately, people have become convinced that equality means ignoring demonstrable biological realities in favour of dogma.

And women always point to outliers as though they were the norm. "What about Serena Williams?', they'll say - ignoring the fact that a/ Serena Williams is a physical freak and b/ that even despite that freakery, she would lose to the top 100 male players.

I find it even funnier in athletics where the relative abilities of the sexes are measured in a verifiable, factual manner- time, height, distance.

So no, it is not me saying that men run faster, its a ****ing stopwatch saying it.

[Burney]

Actually both Willams sisters got battered by the fella ranked 203 on the ATP circuit back in 1998. They had previously said they could beat the man ranked 200, but after their introduction to reality they revised that number to 350.

:hehe: Really? Oh, dear.

Just looked it up. He warmed up with 'a round of golf and a couple of shandies'. :hehe:

https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html

[Burney]

I find it even funnier in athletics where the relative abilities of the sexes are measured in a verifiable, factual manner- time, height, distance.

So no, it is not me saying that men run faster, its a ****ing stopwatch saying it.

Yes. If they could point to even one athletic discipline in which the women's world record is superior to the male one it might help their case.

[Monty92]

:hehe: Really? Oh, dear.

Just looked it up. He warmed up with 'a round of golf and a couple of shandies'. :hehe:

https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html

John McEnroe got in trouble a couple of weeks ago for describing Serena (in glowing terms) as the best women's tennis player ever. He was questioned by the interviewer as to why he couldn't just say she's the best tennis player ever and he replied "errr, because she'd be about 700 on the men's circuit"

Cue the accusations of sexism.

[barrybueno]

Leniency? Leniency?

You're only making it worse for yourself.

Hit him with an extra one match ban for a frivolous appeal imo

[redgunamo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's something actively un-sexy about women playing football.

Sexier than men playing it though, I suppose?

I think the trouble is that you're not really supposed to watch football for the sex. Well, perhaps for a different sort of sex; the one there's nothing wrong with.

[PSRB]

Yes. If they could point to even one athletic discipline in which the women's world record is superior to the male one it might help their case.

In gymnastics they use completely different apparatus that suits either the male or female physique

[Ash]

Actually both Willams sisters got battered by the fella ranked 203 on the ATP circuit back in 1998. They had previously said they could beat any man ranked above 200, but after their meeting with reality they revised that number to 350.

EDIT: Doh! Didn't read the whole thread. :homer:

John McEnroe got into a bit of trouble the other week for suggesting that in the mens game they would be ranked about six or seven hundred. I didn't hear that 'thing in Australia' being mentioned in the shítstorm. JMac did say in his defence "Am I not allowed to have an opinion?".

[Ash]

He was questioned by the interviewer as to why he couldn't just say she's the best tennis player ever and he replied "errr, because she'd be about 700 on the men's circuit"


Maybe he should have said "Because she's not had to play Roger Federer"

[Monty92]

Maybe he should have said "Because she's not had to play Roger Federer"

But the argument is that because Serena has won more grand slams than any other player in history, male or female, it is only right to describe her as the best tennis player ever.

I don't particularly have a problem with that.

[redgunamo]

But the argument is that because Serena has won more grand slams than any other player in history, male or female, it is only right to describe her as the best tennis player ever.

I don't particularly have a problem with that.

And Glasgow Rangers have won a couple of dozen more league titles than Real Madrid.

Damn silly argument; damn silly game.

[Pokster]

But the argument is that because Serena has won more grand slams than any other player in history, male or female, it is only right to describe her as the best tennis player ever.

I don't particularly have a problem with that.

How can you say she is the best tennis player ever when he hasn't played any male tennis players.... you could argue that you can't call RF the best ever as he doesn't play the best women

[Peter]

How can you say she is the best tennis player ever when he hasn't played any male tennis players.... you could argue that you can't call RF the best ever as he doesn't play the best women

True. One could argue that when we talk about the best footballers ever we don't specifically say they are male. Just the best.

Pele never played against a women's team.

[redgunamo]

True. One could argue that when we talk about the best footballers ever we don't specifically say they are male.

Right, but I think the argument is that we should.

[Monty92]

How can you say she is the best tennis player ever when he hasn't played any male tennis players.... you could argue that you can't call RF the best ever as he doesn't play the best women

In the same way that you would probably not complain if someone said Floyd Mayweather is the best boxer ever, without qualifying that you know he'd be beaten to a pulp by every heavyweight on earth.

[Burney]

In the same way that you would probably not complain if someone said Floyd Mayweather is the best boxer ever, without qualifying that you know he'd be beaten to a pulp by every heavyweight on earth.

This is why sensible people always talk about the 'best pound-for-pound' fighter in the world rather than making silly, meaningless statements that ignore the reality that a tiny man like Mayweather wouldn't even scratch most heavyweights and would very likely be killed were one to land a blow on him.

So must it be with female tennis players. Male tennis players are demonstrably better players as they would beat their female equivalents. Thus, a woman cannot be the best tennis player in history by definition.

[redgunamo]

In the same way that you would probably not complain if someone said Floyd Mayweather is the best boxer ever, without qualifying that you know he'd be beaten to a pulp by every heavyweight on earth.

In the fight game, they use the term "pound for pound" to qualify any subjective judgements and address issues regarding weight divisions and so on.

[Pokster]

In the same way that you would probably not complain if someone said Floyd Mayweather is the best boxer ever, without qualifying that you know he'd be beaten to a pulp by every heavyweight on earth.

Ah but in bocing they always say pound for pound...... which is a kop out

[Burney]

True. One could argue that when we talk about the best footballers ever we don't specifically say they are male. Just the best.

Pele never played against a women's team.

Yes. Because it is a given.

[Pokster]

Yes. Because it is a given.

You saying Shay Given is the best player ever... i know you claim to be Irish but that is taking the piss

[redgunamo]

Mixed Martial Arts was invented to answer all these questions anyway, wasn't it? Like Mixed Doubles in tennis,
I suppose.



Yes. Because it is a given.

[Burney]

Ah but in bocing they always say pound for pound...... which is a kop out

Why is it a cop out? It's simply an acknowledgement that it would be absurd to say that Sugar Ray Robinson was a better fighter than Muhammad Ali since - had they ever fought - Ali would almost certainly have won due to his greater size, weight, strength and reach.

[Burney]

Mixed Martial Arts was invented to answer all these questions anyway, wasn't it? Like Mixed Doubles in tennis,
I suppose.

That just seems to be a lot of chaps scragging chaps and kicking one another in the shins.

[Monty92]

That just seems to be a lot of chaps scragging chaps and kicking one another in the shins.

My man Sam Harris is well into Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. That's good enough for me.

[Ash]

In the fight game, they use the term "pound for pound" to qualify any subjective judgements and address issues regarding weight divisions and so on.

In motor racing they use "best in class". Particularly important when different categories of car are racing on the same track (eg le Mans).

[redgunamo]

In motor racing they use "best in class". Particularly important when different categories of car are racing on the same track (eg le Mans).

:homer: Of course; hounds too.

Best of Breed, Best in Group (a group is several breeds of the same type) and Best in Show in which all the Group winners compete for the top prize. Each of these also include a Reserve Best, which is awarded to the best loser from the opposite sex.

[Burney]

My man Sam Harris is well into Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. That's good enough for me.

I like him and he's sound on Islam, but he really needs to get the fùck over himself when it comes to Donald Trump.

[Peter]

Yes. Because it is a given.

Of course. The real problem here is not sexism, its a refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that men are just better at all [these] things.

[Monty92]

I like him and he's sound on Islam, but he really needs to get the fùck over himself when it comes to Donald Trump.

I agree, but his objection to Trump is not rooted in political partisanship. Well that's what he claims, anyway.

He's actually just released a podcast with a Trump supporter - the creator of Dilbert, no less. Only listened to half an hour so far, but covers some interesting ground.

[Burney]

I agree, but his objection to Trump is not rooted in political partisanship. Well that's what he claims, anyway.

He's actually just released a podcast with a Trump supporter - the creator of Dilbert, no less. Only listened to half an hour so far, but covers some interesting ground.

Yes, I haven't listened to that one precisely because it deals with Trump, on which subject I find Mr Harris fearfully po-faced.

I believe his antipathy isn not party-political. However, the impression I get is that his objection is quasi-aesthetic. - that he finds the mere idea of Trump offensive to his middle-class, liberal intellectual sensibilities. He doesn't seem to grasp that offending people like him on those grounds is precisely the point of Donald Trump.

[redgunamo]

As the man said.

And if the fight is to be dirty, well then, the Donald is prepared for that too. For far too long, conservative leaders haven't been prepared to win ugly. His opponents seem to be upset that they've found an adversary who is every bit as dirty and ugly as they are.



Yes, I haven't listened to that one precisely because it deals with Trump, on which subject I find Mr Harris fearfully po-faced.

I believe his antipathy isn not party-political. However, the impression I get is that his objection is quasi-aesthetic. - that he finds the mere idea of Trump offensive to his middle-class, liberal intellectual sensibilities. He doesn't seem to grasp that offending people like him on those grounds is precisely the point of Donald Trump.

[Monty92]

Yes, I haven't listened to that one precisely because it deals with Trump, on which subject I find Mr Harris fearfully po-faced.

I believe his antipathy isn not party-political. However, the impression I get is that his objection is quasi-aesthetic. - that he finds the mere idea of Trump offensive to his middle-class, liberal intellectual sensibilities. He doesn't seem to grasp that offending people like him on those grounds is precisely the point of Donald Trump.

I agree to a point. But I don't think it's quite right to lump Harris in with the middle class liberal intelligentsia, as he would be chucked out of your average Hamptons dinner party within 5 seconds of opening his mouth on most subjects. He is, after all, pro-racial profiling, pro-torture (in some instances), and pro-immigration control, among other things.

The podcast is worth listening to, I think. The fella interviewed is non-political, and stays well away from the usual political talking points around Trump and instead attempts to defend his character in a thought-provoking way.

[redgunamo]

I agree to a point. But I don't think it's quite right to lump Harris in with the middle class liberal intelligentsia, as he would be chucked out of your average Hamptons dinner party within 5 seconds of opening his mouth on most subjects.

The podcast is worth listening to, I think. The fella interviewed is non-political, and stays well away from the usual political talking points around Trump and instead attempts to defend his character in a thought-provoking way.

I can't do podcasts; listening to folk wittering on is hellish. What thoughts did he provoke?

[Monty92]

I can't do podcasts; listening to folk wittering on is hellish. What thoughts did he provoke?

Lots of thoughts.

He asked Harris what he'd prefer, the far right moving to the centre or the far left moving to the centre, and pointed out that no-one has done more in living memory to move more people from the far right to the centre than Trump.

Provoked my thought, anyhoo.

[Burney]

I agree to a point. But I don't think it's quite right to lump Harris in with the middle class liberal intelligentsia, as he would be chucked out of your average Hamptons dinner party within 5 seconds of opening his mouth on most subjects. He is, after all, pro-racial profiling, pro-torture (in some instances), and pro-immigration control, among other things.

The podcast is worth listening to, I think. The fella interviewed is non-political, and stays well away from the usual political talking points around Trump and instead attempts to defend his character in a thought-provoking way.

Fair enough. I'll give it a listen. Harris just annoys me with his 'not fit to be President' schtick. What the fùck does that even mean? He's clever enough to know that the concept of a fit President is an entirely subjective construct.

[Monty92]

Fair enough. I'll give it a listen. Harris just annoys me with his 'not fit to be President' schtick. What the fùck does that even mean? He's clever enough to know that the concept of a fit President is an entirely subjective construct.

But he's never suggested that he isn't a legitimate president, I don't think. And he also begrudgingly praised his recent speech in Poland.

But yes, his main problem with Trump is aesthetic. But bear in mind Harris is a man who is pathologically obsessed with ethical human behaviour, to the extent that he even wrote a book saying that lying is ALWAYS ethically wrong (except in cases where lying would keep someone out of danger). AND he's a vegan!

Basically, he's a proper weirdo. But I do love him.

[Burney]

But he's never suggested that he isn't a legitimate president, I don't think. And he also begrudgingly praised his recent speech in Poland.

But yes, his main problem with Trump is aesthetic. But bear in mind Harris is a man who is pathologically obsessed with ethical human behaviour, to the extent that he even wrote a book saying that lying is ALWAYS ethically wrong (except in cases where lying would keep someone out of danger). AND he's a vegan!

Basically, he's a proper weirdo. But I do love him.

To be fair, I didn't say he'd said he wasn't legitimate, I said he'd said he wasn't fit.

So all lying is ethically wrong? What if your wife asks if you still find her attractive? Surely it's fine to say 'Yes' even if she's a 17-stone heifer?

[Monty92]

To be fair, I didn't say he'd said he wasn't legitimate, I said he'd said he wasn't fit.

So all lying is ethically wrong? What if your wife asks if you still find her attractive? Surely it's fine to say 'Yes' even if she's a 17-stone heifer?

Nope, I've not read the book but I believe Harris would say you should tell her the truth (in as tactful a way as you can muster).

Let's both try it with our respectives next time and see how we get on :hehe:

Hang on, what did I just say? :-(

[Burney]

Nope, I've not read the book but I believe Harris would say you should tell her the truth (in as tactful a way as you can muster).

Let's both try it with our respectives next time and see how we get on :hehe:

Hang on, what did I just say? :-(

I believe you insulted both our wives. :furious:

Why do I strongly suspect that he's a vegan because it's the only logically and ethically consistent way of being a vegetarian? :-(

Like you say, a weirdo.

[Monty92]

I believe you insulted both our wives. :furious:

Why do I strongly suspect that he's a vegan because it's the only logically and ethically consistent way of being a vegetarian? :-(

Like you say, a weirdo.

He's one of them types who believes that in 100 years we'll look back on our treatment of animals in the same way as we look back on our ancestors' treatment of slaves.

[redgunamo]

Lots of thoughts.

He asked Harris what he'd prefer, the far right moving to the centre or the far left moving to the centre, and pointed out that no-one has done more in living memory to move more people from the far right to the centre than Trump.

Provoked my thought, anyhoo.

Not bad, I guess. Damning with faint praise, they call it, I think.

[Burney]

He's one of them types who believes that in 100 years we'll look back on our treatment of animals in the same way as we look back on our ancestors' treatment of slaves.

Yeah. He's wrong. History demonstrates pretty clearly that mankind does not willingly forego sources of physical pleasure on ethical grounds. Prostitution has been going strong since time immemorial despite the fact that it effectively commoditises human beings to satisfy a physical craving. Given which, it seems unlikely to me that as a species we're going to get around to *actually* being bothered about dead animals any time soon.

[Burney]

Not bad, I guess. Damning with faint praise, they call it, I think.


He's only moved people in the sense that he's redefined what the centre is, though.

[Monty92]

He's only moved people in the sense that he's redefined what the centre is, though.

Not really. The policies he's implemented (or tried to) seem pretty conventionally centre right to me.

[Burney]

Not really. The policies he's implemented (or tried to) seem pretty conventionally centre right to me.

Oh, sure. But this is about what those labels had come to mean before him. He's redefined the centre as somewhere that the people who had been marginalised as 'deplorable' could feel they belonged again.
All regimes normalise their policy positions as the centre. In other words, the 'far right' was only called that by the left, who had also spent a lot of time defining the left as being the centre.

[redgunamo]

Oh, sure. But this is about what those labels had come to mean before him. He's redefined the centre as somewhere that the people who had been marginalised as 'deplorable' could feel they belonged again.
All regimes normalise their policy positions as the centre. In other words, the 'far right' was only called that by the left, who had also spent a lot of time defining the left as being the centre.

Yes, rather like labelling any of your players that doesn't play at the back or in goal as a striker, or potential striker, right up until the moment you actually sign a striker.

[Peter]

Oh, sure. But this is about what those labels had come to mean before him. He's redefined the centre as somewhere that the people who had been marginalised as 'deplorable' could feel they belonged again.
All regimes normalise their policy positions as the centre. In other words, the 'far right' was only called that by the left, who had also spent a lot of time defining the left as being the centre.

He is rather difficult to define in this sense. The link between policy and rhetoric is not always straightforward with him and, quite frankly, he talks a lot of nonsensical *******s. Many of his moves are indistinguishable from most Republican Presidents but the way he goes about it is rather different. Or at least the way he describes it is.

His 'unconventional' approach is what people admire. Even if it leads to conventional actions.

[Burney]

He is rather difficult to define in this sense. The link between policy and rhetoric is not always straightforward with him and, quite frankly, he talks a lot of nonsensical *******s. Many of his moves are indistinguishable from most Republican Presidents but the way he goes about it is rather different. Or at least the way he describes it is.

His 'unconventional' approach is what people admire. Even if it leads to conventional actions.

Well yes. He's rather fun. Also, by stomping around the place being extremely gauche in a loud voice, he very much embodies the American national character as a lot of Americans see it, I think.

[redgunamo]

He is rather difficult to define in this sense. The link between policy and rhetoric is not always straightforward with him and, quite frankly, he talks a lot of nonsensical *******s. Many of his moves are indistinguishable from most Republican Presidents but the way he goes about it is rather different. Or at least the way he describes it is.

His 'unconventional' approach is what people admire. Even if it leads to conventional actions.

That's the point; it only seems unconventional to your sort.

You said before you may even have voted for him yourself. Why?

[redgunamo]

Well yes. He's rather fun. Also, by stomping around the place being extremely gauche in a loud voice, he very much embodies the American national character as a lot of Americans see it, I think.

And equally, as many foreigners see it too. Which makes it seem even better still to Americans.

[Peter]

Well yes. He's rather fun. Also, by stomping around the place being extremely gauche in a loud voice, he very much embodies the American national character as a lot of Americans see it, I think.

Yes. He is arguably the most 'watchable' President in living memory. And it has to be said, the campaign was hilarious.

[Peter]

That's the point; it only seems unconventional to your sort.

You said before you may even have voted for him yourself. Why?

I said if I had lived in Ohio for 30 years and been unemployed I would have voted for him. For obvious reasons. He didn't come around promising generic investment, high tech jobs, the usual garbage. He spoke to them in a way they could understand and promised them what they actually wanted. As I say, highly unconventional.

If its a choice between Hillary and the lunatic, he is well worth a punt.

I think the feeling of being politically ignored in the States is totally off the charts in terms of our understanding.

[Burney]

I said if I had lived in Ohio for 30 years and been unemployed I would have voted for him. For obvious reasons. He didn't come around promising generic investment, high tech jobs, the usual garbage. He spoke to them in a way they could understand and promised them what they actually wanted. As I say, highly unconventional.

If its a choice between Hillary and the lunatic, he is well worth a punt.

I think the feeling of being politically ignored in the States is totally off the charts in terms of our understanding.

Just HOW shįt a candidate was Hillary, though? They couldn't have found a candidate more likely to motivate the marginalised against her if they'd actually been trying to.

[Peter]

Just HOW shįt a candidate was Hillary, though? They couldn't have found a candidate more likely to motivate the marginalised against her if they'd actually been trying to.

They thought nobody could lose to whoever the Republicans fielded- especially him. Sanders was the gamble and Hillary the safe bet.

In truth, Sanders could have beaten him. Would have been a very interesting campaign.

[Burney]

They thought nobody could lose to whoever the Republicans fielded- especially him. Sanders was the gamble and Hillary the safe bet.

In truth, Sanders could have beaten him. Would have been a very interesting campaign.

Not sure Sanders would've stood up to the scrutiny of a Presidential campaign. When you're positioning yourself as the Simon pure guy, there's just too many man traps to stumble into.

[Peter]

Not sure Sanders would've stood up to the scrutiny of a Presidential campaign. When you're positioning yourself as the Simon pure guy, there's just too many man traps to stumble into.

Nobody thought Trump would. This was no ordinary campaign.

[Burney]

Nobody thought Trump would. This was no ordinary campaign.

Yeah, but 'scandals' didn't touch Trump because he'd already said the media was out to get him. So every time they went for him, it vindicated and strengthened him in his supporters' eyes. Equally, being prepared to say shocking and offensive things was very much part of his appeal, so that inoculated him against the danger of gaffes. It was a very clever bit of stupidity.

I'm not sure Bernie Sanders would've been able to survive those sorts of bumps in the road as easily.

[Peter]

Yeah, but 'scandals' didn't touch Trump because he'd already said the media was out to get him. So every time they went for him, it vindicated and strengthened him in his supporters' eyes. Equally, being prepared to say shocking and offensive things was very much part of his appeal, so that inoculated him against the danger of gaffes. It was a very clever bit of stupidity.

I'm not sure Bernie Sanders would've been able to survive those sorts of bumps in the road as easily.

If you look at where Trump won the election, Sanders would have given him a far tougher ride. He also would have been a very different proposition in debate where Hillary was beyond useless.

Also, the American public don't universally despise him. Always a good start.

[redgunamo]

Nobody thought Trump would. This was no ordinary campaign.

No, it was an ordinary campaign, but he was no ordinary candidate.

[Burney]

If you look at where Trump won the election, Sanders would have given him a far tougher ride. He also would have been a very different proposition in debate where Hillary was beyond useless.

Also, the American public don't universally despise him. Always a good start.

Yeah, there was the whole 'he's a socialist' thing, though. Americans reflexively run a mile from that. I think that would've hurt him. Americans will accept a bit of socialism here and there, but God help you if you actually call it socialism.

[Peter]

No, it was an ordinary campaign, but he was no ordinary candidate.

which made it no ordinary campaign.

[Peter]

Yeah, there was the whole 'he's a socialist' thing, though. Americans reflexively run a mile from that. I think that would've hurt him. Americans will accept a bit of socialism here and there, but God help you if you actually call it socialism.

Of course. I do think there are large parts of American where being a woman is still seen as worse though.

Its about the electoral math, b :D

[Burney]

Of course. I do think there are large parts of American where being a woman is still seen as worse though.

Its about the electoral math, b :D

I take your point, but I just think all the Trump campaign would've had to do was constantly refer to 'the socialist Bernie Sanders' and they'd have won.

Anyway, this is all speculation. I think we can agree that the US election last year was an unprecedented shítshow in terms of the quality of candidates - and all the more entertaining for it.

[Monty92]

I take your point, but I just think all the Trump campaign would've had to do was constantly refer to 'the socialist Bernie Sanders' and they'd have won.

Anyway, this is all speculation. I think we can agree that the US election last year was an unprecedented shítshow in terms of the quality of candidates - and all the more entertaining for it.

Just like how "terrorist sympathiser Jeremy Corbyn" cut through :-(

[Peter]

I take your point, but I just think all the Trump campaign would've had to do was constantly refer to 'the socialist Bernie Sanders' and they'd have won.

Anyway, this is all speculation. I think we can agree that the US election last year was an unprecedented shítshow in terms of the quality of candidates - and all the more entertaining for it.

Agreed. Now I want to know if Trump really does dig coal...

[redgunamo]

which made it no ordinary campaign.

It always looks good if you give credit where it's due though.