RicoS321

I just got my ticket. Very excited. Could be game of the season.

If only some of us had thought have that years ago. Although I suspect it's not unusual for a sporting director to leave post while a manager is in place, so we can just treat it like that.

Especially when a middle aged Scottish teacher started screaming and threw his underwear on stage.

I don't think it's essential that it's a former manager either. It needs someone that holds the manager to account, plays devil's advocate and makes sure that the tactics, signings, youth minutes etc align with the strategy.

How's that working out for the EU? It's an interesting point, but you seem to have just stopped at the most palatable point (dissolution). People in Florida don't want to ban abortion and carry guns, but a proportion of them do. It would seem that the population of Florida isn't a homogeneous blob, just like in every other state, so what makes you think that approximately 22 million people can be governed, in anything other than the abstract, at that level? In the UK, for example, a large proportion of Scots feel that the government in Westminster is too far removed. I might/do feel that a Holyrood government is too abstract. Moreover, the globalised, dominant, structure couldn't give a fuck what I, or the rest of Scotland, think! Do you genuinely believe that there's a mechanism of dissolution in the US that neatly falls around state borders, and can be reached without violence?

Over-qualified. I've got years of experience of complaining about shite not being done properly.

Interesting. Why do you think civil war isn't an inevitability? How would you avoid it? Is there an option to avoid it within the US political system in your opinion? What are the "principles of a democratic society", and where does that democracy start and end? As far as I see it, the US, like the rest of the world, faces a period of declining energy availability. With that, a concomitant (J Traynor™) decline in material availability and an obvious - and required - reversal of growth. How do you suggest that the US handles its coming decline?

Why would the groypers have anything to do with Bannon or government? Aren't they about ushering in the collapse?

I thought they were fine on Saturday, and really didn't get the reaction that Nilsen received. Palaversa, on the other hand, was absolutely dogshite. The idea of having a dynamic front four and fullbacks going outside the inverted wingers makes sense. Shinnie put in a lot of work in midfield, but he wouldn't have managed that without Nilsen there. There was very little that got through to the back four with those two there. There's a good argument to be made that we should be more adventurous at home, but there's an even better argument that says that our front four plus fullbacks should be scoring from the solid base offered to them. The fullbacks not getting forward quickly enough was quite a problem. Not sure it's in either of their games (wait to see more of Gyamfi of course).

I don't have a definition of right wing, I use the one available on the internet, and dictionaries and such like. The correct one. But you can take my word for it, the democrats are a right wing party. Your economic system - since Reagan - is a right wing economic system. Thus anything that falls under that, whether democrat or republican is necessarily right wing. All your wars have been right wing economic wars. Your war on drugs is a right wing economic war, your prison system is a right wing economic approach to incarceration, your health system is a right wing economic ideological approach to care (or not care). Even the UK, which has remnants of a system built under left wing policy, is governed for and by the right wing economic system. A system that is collapsing and thus looking for scapegoats in the easy form of immigrants and trans people (or whatever the culture war flavour of the day is). Whether trans people get to change their identities, or women get the vote does not alter the reality of the economic system they live under. Christianity still takes comfortable second place to the religion of the economic system (hence why yer lad Kirk wasn't giving up his possessions or calling for an end to the practice of loan interest - like Jesus would have). You (we) live in a right wing system, a system that uses violence every day to keep it that way. Of course those democrats you mention will be involved in the various activities of the system (see Raynor in the UK). That is the world they live in. They aren't the good guys, just because they say the right things. When have you heard Pelosi discuss the physics of economic growth? She doesn't. She's where she is because she doesn't question the system. It's a prerequisite. Voting democrat will always return that. I wouldn't argue otherwise, nor am I. The only issue that I have with your argument is your partisan stance on the republican side. Things were not worse under Biden, nor better under Trump. Both made things increasingly worse for significant proportions of people. Do you think a Latin American low paid worker looking over their shoulder is better off under Trump's witch-hunt? Of course not. Just as you were worse off in California under Biden - because you and that Latino are the same. Inequality continued to increase significantly under both Biden and Trump, because they are the same. They are both your enemy. The illustration would be the lad that shot the pharma director. Why was his violence worse than the violence that saw his mum (I think it was his mum) unable to afford healthcare? Only one of those actions could actually be justified. The guy wasn't a right or left wing nutjob, just an ordinary guy screwed over by the real enemy. The enemy backed by both Trump and Biden, controlled by the right wing economic system. The source of almost all violence in the US.

I think we need to be stubborn as fuck and give him the whole season, regardless. If it's a three year project, then see it through. I don't agree with the phrase "we've backed the manager" otherwise. You can't just throw money around in a transfer window and say that you've done your bit, there's so much room for error in the market, and it takes time. @OrlandoDon points out the huge turnover, but it's more than that. That turnover has happened every single year since McInnes left, which shows the failure of our approach. We've either had players who have been great and left for money or guys that were gash and just left. Probably the issue with not going for Scottish players more regularly (Devlin and Shinnie have made their homes here), or players 27+. @Panda mentions that both Goodwin and Robson (and Glass) had reached a point where they couldn't turn it around, but I actually think that they were fall guys (and Glass) for mistakes above them. Had they been given the public backing of 3 year project, we'd have perhaps seen a better situation. There is little to suggest that Thelin is any more capable of playing entertaining football successfully in this league, and indeed we have started to see a little of the direct ball and get the knock downs that Robson was fond of (which is fine by me). European football this season was always going to be a step too far for us, but it came with a cup, so we just live with it. Our teams are far too transient to belong to any one of the managers we've had since McInnes. They need at least one window to clear out the shite that were bought under their own watch. Managers are usually still clearing out the backlog of the previous manager when they get fired. Normally I'd say three windows, but with our turnover it'd be four. However, the age profile of our team suggests we're not going to get it right anytime soon.

It's a really good analogy. While we discuss the minutiae of the Dons' tactical issues, we simultaneously suspend the topic of the systemic makeup of our game. While the folk in charge deliberately allow the game to go to shite, the talking heads distract with chat about coefficient and just needing to believe. Your opinions about Aberdeen on the pitch are not as valid (in your example), but your wide boundary view of the Scottish game doesn't require you to be on the ground, and would be equally as valid. But, to be honest, if you're not willing to dive that deep, than that's probably why you think that the left is more violent than the right, when it demonstrably isn't. You don't even seem to accept that both the Republicans and Democrats are both right wing. It's like describing Bill Gates against mark Zuckerberg as left versus right. There hasn't been a left of any sort representing the US in fifty years. Democrats Vs Republicans is professional managerial class Vs ownership class, the sole aim being power, with the populace being tricked into picking a side. The people engaging in the arguments that you see (and I see in the UK, because it's largely the same) are exactly the same as one another. Why on earth would you (for example, not literally you) pick a fight (debate) with an unemployed person, an immigrant or someone who has been evicted from their home, at the behest of some cunt like Trump or Musk? Or why would a feminist start an argument with a working class man, at the behest of Hilary Clinton or Kamala Harris? Why are so many people doing the bidding of these powerful people? Who benefits? Your portfolio story is telling. Did anyone seriously think the banking sector would lose out when Trump came to power? Only stupid people (the experts you mention, I'm assuming, were economics experts. In other words, fraudsters, educated in a sudo-religious game). Trump is the same. He might change the way the game is played, slightly, but he'll never ever question the game itself.

Absolutely. As I say, most violence is of the state. I'd argue that everyone is not against political violence, including you! It's just that we've created this artificial barrier that says that because the violence is of/by the state or country, that it's in some way legitimate. I'm sure there's a police shooting out there that you've (perhaps correctly) thought was justified. You might agree with Israel's right to defend itself, or a corporation's right to refuse someone health care. All of these things are political violence (similarly homelessness), based on a made-up, right wing, economic system. Most people see this violence as acceptable as they are told that it is acceptable, because it conforms to some arbitrary man-made laws. The US has exported political violence worldwide, toppling whichever governments didn't conform to its right wing economic agenda, backed by the IMF. At home, they arbitrarily decide that you can't consume particular drugs, whilst allowing the biggest pharmaceutical companies to murder people via fentanyl or other addictive drug of choice (those pharmaceutical companies exist, and lobby, because the right wing economic system allows it - and the right wing state deregulates it). What really is the difference between an IDF soldier killing a Gazan child, and some right wing/left wing/incel/trans (delete as appropriate) person who decided that they didn't like his politics? Meanwhile, the same people that brought you forty years of right wing, inhumane, unnatural, ecologically disastrous, anti-physics economic growth ideology, happen to also own the news networks that spend 24/7 telling you that the left/right is your enemy, stoking hate and division in order that nobody stops to question why their violence is somehow worse than the biggest source of political violence. Those people are your enemy. Fox news is your enemy, CNN, MSNBC are your enemy. Not your foreign neighbour, or the BLM/Proud boys lad from down the road.

"World's most unnecessary stat" thread for this shite

You don't need to live there to know that the majority of political violence is, factually speaking, right wing. The majority of political violence occurs on behalf the state. The current state is run by Republican Trump, the previous, Democrat Biden. Both right wing, just as Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan before them were. Beyond that, there may be some individual left wing people causing violence, and a couple of marginalised groups, offset against the invariably right wing school shooters and other assorted weirdos. I'm not particularly against political violence as it happens, I think it's inevitable in a corrupt system such as the one we've designed, and sometimes essential. I wouldn't class myself as left wing either. I wouldn't really give much of a shite if right wing violence did outweigh left, I was attempting to be objective, and objectively speaking it isn't even close. Unless Fox news are burying a large cache of left wing organised violence that nobody in the world is hearing about, or seeing.