Off Topic Thread 3.0

Podge_irl · 01-08-2017 02:27PM

Emilee Bitter Ginseng wrote: »

Podge_irl wrote: »

Which was essentially political bull****. That aside he committed perjury because he lied to a congressional committee (I think). Something trump hasn't done. Lying itself is not a crime.

Lying to congress absolutely is a crime in the US.

Yes, which was what undid Clinton. Lying itself is not. Trump hasn't even spoken to Congress under oath.

01-08-2017 02:34PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes, which was what undid Clinton. Lying itself is not. Trump hasn't even spoken to Congress under oath.

It's perjury if you lie under oath. It's still illegal to give false statements to Congress whether under oath or not.

Anyway, he's not getting impeached.

01-08-2017 02:45PM

Emilee Bitter Ginseng wrote: »

His job approval rating has been rock solid in the 80%'s among Republicans. The politicians aren't going to want him gone when he represents their best chance at advancing their agenda. He seemed totally hands off in the health care debate for example, McConnell + a few cronies wrote the whole bill. Why would he want Trump gone when Trump just stays out of his way?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

If Trump had a solid healthcare agenda other than "Obamacare is bad" and worked with the senate since his inauguration to achieve this I think it would be done. The President is a big voice in terms of passing major legislation but Trump is just meaningless soundbites, incoherence and bluster which didn't win anyone over for the GOP that they didn't already have.

As for his numbers, yes - the Republican base is aggressively loyal, driven mostly by their artificial hate of the left. However, the difference between which party is in power is which party can do two things:

1. Energise their base
2. Win moderates and women

Trump will still have support but it's starting to dwindle from column 1. He has completely lost column 2. If there was an election on Friday the Dems would win more seats in both houses than the Republicans have now and there would be a Democratic President.

This should be a golden era for Republicans. They acted the absolute maggot the last 8 years under Obama and didn't get punished a single bit for it. The economy is in good shape in America (which Trump is trying to claim responsibility for) and this should be an upward swing for Republicans but it's going the other way thanks to Trump.

That said, he won't go through impeachment. When things get too out of hand the GOP will send 1 or 2 serious Generals to go and spell it out to Trump and he will walk whilst blaming everyone and in particular, Hilary Clinton.

stephen_n · 01-08-2017 02:50PM

The Republican Party won't go after Trump that's a given, they may not go out on a limb to protect him either. Trump has shown that he has no interest in rules, so the old saying of "give him enough rope"... comes into play. He will undoubtedly do something illegal in the next three years, if he hasn't already. There are already ongoing attempts to bring impeachment proceedings against him as it is. Sooner or later one will start, chances are the republicans will block it at every turn, unless it's something really bad for the party. But it's at that point that Trump could well spit the dummy and walk. His ego needs stroking constantly and he may well just get tired of the game, if he's not getting the adulation "he deserves".

Podge_irl · 01-08-2017 02:55PM

Emilee Bitter Ginseng wrote: »

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes, which was what undid Clinton. Lying itself is not. Trump hasn't even spoken to Congress under oath.

It's perjury if you lie under oath. It's still illegal to give false statements to Congress whether under oath or not.

Anyway, he's not getting impeached.

Ah you are correct. I don't think he has made any official statements to congress though?

Neil3030 · 01-08-2017 03:05PM

stephen_n wrote: »

The Republican Party won't go after Trump that's a given, they may not go out on a limb to protect him either. Trump has shown that he has no interest in rules, so the old saying of "give him enough rope"... comes into play. He will undoubtedly do something illegal in the next three years, if he hasn't already. There are already ongoing attempts to bring impeachment proceedings against him as it is. Sooner or later one will start, chances are the republicans will block it at every turn, unless it's something really bad for the party. But it's at that point that Trump could well spit the dummy and walk. His ego needs stroking constantly and he may well just get tired of the game, if he's not getting the adulation "he deserves".

I'd actually be inclined to argue the opposite, tbh. My hunch is that his team will learn to manage him more capably as time goes on, and the likelihood of him being impeached will decrease, the longer he is in the job. If he was going to go, it would have been for something that took place before he assumed office, I reckon.

01-08-2017 03:13PM

Neil3030 wrote: »

I'd actually be inclined to argue the opposite, tbh. My hunch is that his team will learn to manage him more capably as time goes on, and the likelihood of him being impeached will decrease, the longer he is in the job. If he was going to go, it would have been for something that took place before he assumed office, I reckon.

Last week alone was probably the worst it's been. Maybe the people around him will start getting control, but he's more unhinged now than ever and it does look like things are spiralling out of and not into control.

If he sacks Sessions it's over as the Senate Republicans will all turn on him.

Id say the likely outcome is that he will be primaried in 2020 by a young moderate conservative (someone like Rubio) and will either not run or will run as an independent (which would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP).

01-08-2017 03:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If he sacks Sessions it's over as the Senate Republicans will all turn on him

I think any interference in the DoJ, be it Sessions, Rosenstein or Mueller and it could be enough to get the Republicans to turn. Not sure I'd just declare it over, the GOP are spineless.

stephen_n · 01-08-2017 04:26PM

Neil3030 wrote: »

I'd actually be inclined to argue the opposite, tbh. My hunch is that his team will learn to manage him more capably as time goes on, and the likelihood of him being impeached will decrease, the longer he is in the job. If he was going to go, it would have been for something that took place before he assumed office, I reckon.

Given the reaction of most republicans to his Trans tweet, he's a long way from being under control, he seems to take his own counsel a lot. The amount of staff he's going through, either suggests he's looking for less spineless options, who might keep him in check. As he had when he was in business. Or else he's having difficulty being managed, hard to tell which though.

Neil3030 · 01-08-2017 05:07PM

Sure, it'll be an absolute omniclusterf*ckingshambles in the White House while he's there, but in order to be impeached he needs to be suspected of committing a crime. He can tweet more or less what he wants and he can certainly fire who he wants, that won't get him impeached.

thomond2006 · 02-08-2017 08:18PM

That Neymar contract. Chriiiiist.

Buer · 02-08-2017 08:28PM

thomond2006 wrote:

That Neymar contract. Chriiiiist.

I'm genuinely disgusted to see that amount of money involved for someone to simply play a sport for a particular sports club.

02-08-2017 09:00PM

Neil3030 wrote: »

Sure, it'll be an absolute omniclusterf*ckingshambles in the White House while he's there, but in order to be impeached he needs to be suspected of committing a crime. He can tweet more or less what he wants and he can certainly fire who he wants, that won't get him impeached.

He doesn't need to commit a crime or be suspected of a crime, that isn't the threshold in the constitution. It's what it would probably take in reality.

thomond2006 · 02-08-2017 11:06PM

Buer wrote: »

I'm genuinely disgusted to see that amount of money involved for someone to simply play a sport for a particular sports club.

They surely can't make money off this. Can PSG become a major brand like Man Utd or Barcelona?

Transfer fees in general seem to have exploded out of control. Suddenly £50m isn't a massive outlay anymore.

The goings-on in China are another story altogether.

Zzippy · 02-08-2017 11:06PM

Buer wrote: »

I'm genuinely disgusted to see that amount of money involved for someone to simply play a sport for a particular sports club.

Football is eating itself. The only way to pay for this is increasing TV revenues, but more and more people are streaming now and won't pay. It can't be sustainable.

02-08-2017 11:16PM

Zzippy wrote: »

Football is eating itself. The only way to pay for this is increasing TV revenues, but more and more people are streaming now and won't pay. It can't be sustainable.

The bubble will burst. I'd give it 5-10 years

In Europe there has been over 2.5 billion spent on transfers this season and over a Billion of that is in the EPL

CatFromHue · 03-08-2017 01:52AM

thomond2006 wrote: »

They surely can't make money off this. Can PSG become a major brand like Man Utd or Barcelona?

Transfer fees in general seem to have exploded out of control. Suddenly £50m isn't a massive outlay anymore.

The goings-on in China are another story altogether.

I haven't followed what's going on with Neymar or in China but on the £50m thing they will probably recoup this money on the back of that player fairly easily.

The slices of the pie are getting bigger but that's because the pie itself is getting bigger. There's just so much money in football at the moment.

irishbucsfan · 03-08-2017 07:01AM

CatFromHue wrote: »

I haven't followed what's going on with Neymar or in China but on the £50m thing they will probably recoup this money on the back of that player fairly easily.

The slices of the pie are getting bigger but that's because the pie itself is getting bigger. There's just so much money in football at the moment.

Not when they're squad players.

There's no profit in the transaction whatsoever.

stephen_n · 03-08-2017 07:38AM

CatFromHue wrote: »

I haven't followed what's going on with Neymar or in China but on the £50m thing they will probably recoup this money on the back of that player fairly easily.

The slices of the pie are getting bigger but that's because the pie itself is getting bigger. There's just so much money in football at the moment.

Man City spent £30 million on a backup right back, a bench warmer. That equals a previous record for a defender in the EPL, which I think has stood till last year. How will they recoup that? Jersey sales, not bloody likely. Clubs like PSG and Man City don't have anywhere near the turnover to recoup this. So they will need bigger TV deals to justify it.

Buer · 03-08-2017 08:16AM

CatFromHue wrote: »

I haven't followed what's going on with Neymar or in China but on the £50m thing they will probably recoup this money on the back of that player fairly easily.

They won't, really. The clubs that can recoup that sort of money back from a player's merchandising and publicity can be counted on one hand. Manchester United, Barcelona and Real Madrid pretty much who have 8 of the 10 biggest transfer fees in history as it stands.

The likes of Man City, PSG or Juventus (who signed Higuain for €90m) do not have that level of presence in the world market. Juventus managed to turn a profit a year ago for the first time in six years or so and that was after completely dominating Italian football (they've won the league 6 years on the trot now and the domestic double 3 years in a row which is ridiculous when you think about it).

What those teams have is huge private investment. If the money men were to walk away from their expensive toys, these clubs would risk administration within a few years.

thomond2006 · 03-08-2017 09:12PM

PSG have just spent over double the purchase price of club in 2011. Financial Fair Play eh?

04-08-2017 10:04AM

thomond2006 wrote: »

PSG have just spent over double the purchase price of club in 2011. Financial Fair Play eh?

That is a quite incredible little factoid.

thomond2006 · 04-08-2017 10:14AM

If you include Neymar's salary, it's nearly four times.

awec · 04-08-2017 10:18AM

Decent enough salary if you can get it I suppose.

Buer · 04-08-2017 10:32AM

awec wrote: »

Decent enough salary if you can get it I suppose.

But is he happy?

mfceiling · 05-08-2017 04:59PM

awec wrote: »

Armagh v Tyrone up next then...

*looks at mfceiling*

*looks back at awec*

Buer · 05-08-2017 05:26PM

If Armagh was a horse they'd have a bullet in them half an hour ago.

irishbucsfan · 05-08-2017 06:00PM

I snuck into the hill wearing my white. Carrying Kildare this year

awec · 05-08-2017 06:43PM

Only saw first half, not much of a game.

Dubs match almost as dull.

Stheno · 05-08-2017 07:24PM

Dubs are hammering monaghan

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Comments