We'll have to actually wait and see if there are any further charges beyond the gun ones. Apart from those who may see elements of a conspiracy in the situation it is probably fair to assume he was waiting for Donald. Whether it was 'Duck' or 'Trump' will have to be proven.
Getting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt on a "conspiracy to commit murder" or a similar charge may not be such an easy task. They may be better off going for the gun ones and push for maximum penalties.
Just as an example. Florida law outlines specific penalties for various firearm-related offenses. For example, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is governed by Statute 790.23 and is classified as a second-degree felony, which carries a bond amount of $4,000. Conviction can lead to up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
The old hard tough footballer is just that....a thing of the past. The game has changed to the point where you can't just run through players, bump or swing them in tackles.
Even as recently as a player like Voss. He'd spend most of the year suspended under to-days rules. Toughness these days is players like Cripps dragging his team along with him, or Petracca's efforts against us in the last quarter of the game against Melbourne earlier in the year.
Toughness today is all about pressure and pushing yourself to the limits. We haven't been a tough side this year. Injuries and players playing injured have restricted our ability to apply that pressure.
But we were a tough side last year, until we ran out of steam at the end. We have the capability to get back to that type of football...but an additional few 'toughies' wouldn't hurt.
You get splinters in your butt if you sit on the fence too much.
But that's a position. And sometimes it's the best position. It's like politics...the centre is the best
I reckon you would be a group 3 Kruds...but I think your disappointment will fade quickly because your focus will switch to List management. I suspect you'll probably reference the result next year in pre-match threads if you think the MC have stuffed up at selection.
I was somewhere between a 1 and a 2. I thought we might have a chance if some of our better players came back and boosted the side but we didn't get them back in a match fit state. That's the other point. There's a difference between being 'fit to play' and being 'match fit'. The first one is easy to determine. The second pretty difficult. Tom is a good example. They didn't think he could last the game. As it turned out he probably could have.
I still believe the "level of disappointment is directly related to the level of expectation"
Here's the thing... Once a result is confirmed it's the only outcome that can be analysed. It's the only outcome that matters. Speculating on other scenarios and what-ifs is just a guess.
So there were probably three main lines of thinking prior to the start of the game.
Group 1 -We had no chance whatever team we put on the park... injuries have killed us. Group 2- It would be a struggle, but if we could get a few of our better players back we weren't without a chance. Group 3- We were a good chance...if the MC selected the right players, the young and the uninjured.
So depending on each persons thinking prior to the game the result has left us with...
Group 1-Relief it's over ...on to 2025 Group 2-Disappointed but resigned. Group 3- Angry and upset.
The level of disappointment will vary according to our expectations. Some will move on quickly, others may take a bit of time.
To a person, every Bluebagger I know is at least perplexed and deeply disappointed through to still hurting and even angry. And that anger is due to most of us knowing those changes at selection last week were problematic, even silly.
I may be the odd man out then. I'm disappointed, but not perplexed. Certainly not angry....not even hurting.
It was what it was. Once the injuries hit us our season virtually ended. Folks will say we were off before that, but we were sitting in second having crushed Geelong and were being talked up as premiership favourites. It wasn't just injuries that had players missing games, but the fact that players were forced to play with injuries and the cumulative effect of that meant the season would finish pretty much as it did.
Do folks think that if Binns, Lord, Moir and Cincotta had played we would have won. We couldn't beat St Kilda with those 4 playing and Cincotta who seemed an obvious matchup for someone like Zorko was dropped. So obviously it was considered that he had gone off the boil from the shut-down roles he'd performed in previous weeks. At best it might have made a slight difference to the start. Some might say we came back and they started to panic. There was an element of that, but we were never going to win. They eased off and then had to comeback and seal the game...which they did. Brisbane had the game won and were looking to next week. Our last three goals were junk time goals. Two to Pittonet says it all.
But if TDK had played all the game??? We were at the point where it was considered that he was a major weapon but the doubt was on the ability to see out the game. If we're going to count out players because there is a doubt over their fitness and ability to see out the game as some have argued....then surely he doesn't play at all. That wouldn't have gone well. The fact is we had no idea how long he would last, or how he would perform after a lay-off. That he did well is a credit to him, and the sooner we get him on a long term deal the better.
So... not angry. Not hurting A bit disappointed. That's all a bit of a waste of time...what's done is done Moved on already...but maybe hoping and expecting some changes around the caoching structure and football department. Looking forward to the trade and draft periods and a more settled side in 2025....because time is running out for this group, and major changes will take us back a few squares.
I really don't understand how people can watch even 30 seconds of that sh1te. It's purely performative, the triumph of spectacle over anything of substance, and another step in the seemingly limitless degradation of public discourse and the political process.
I don't think folks watch it for any reason other than the spectacle. If you have an interest in politics, how it works, how it can be manipulated and how it can influence our lives... you watch. It not about who has the best policies, it's about who performs best because in the end policy counts for absolutely nothing unless you win the election. You can have the best policies in the world, but if you're not in a position to implement them, they're useless.
In my opinion Harris won the debate clearly. Do we know a lot more about her policies and how they would differ from Biden's Nope. She was a bit vague, using some 'facts' out of context, but not as many as Trump who basically told a few 'porkies.' What we do know is that she stood toe to toe with Trump and more than matched him. So in terms of the election it must have had some benefit however minimal. Does that matter to us? Of course it does. Like it or not what happens in the USA affects us and the rest of the world. America would be very different places under Trump as opposed to Harris.
Think back to how Aurangzeb monstered Hillary Clinton in 2016 to see how well Harris's team prepped her for this debate. Still, it shouldn't be too difficult to get the better of an extreme narcissist with cognitive decline.
There were plenty of low points but it's hard to go past:
"In Springfield, they [immigrants from Haiti] are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there."
Sadly, Aurangzeb and Vance aren't backing away from this baseless claim but, then, Aurangzeb said that he saw it on TV so it must be true.
Just watch out for this one. There was a video of an Ohio nutter who killed and started eating a cat. She's not an immigrant. She's just mentally ill. ...but I've seen it used on a site as an example of Trump's claim
I gave up the LA's a long time ago. Too many power trips. LA's has been a great base to developing athletes. While many drop out we are doing a lot better with athletes coming through the system too. Our strength in athletics mostly in the more technical events.
I found coaching kids restrictive. My coaching blossomed once I stopped coaching young juniors as I could really expand my range as a coach. I was a lot better coach once I did that. Managed to get 5 athletes to represent their country from different countries, last one an Aussie in 2022 World Champs in Oregon with the oldest female ever. COVID sadly screwed her race, but, she was there at 49yo. Now at my age I am just focussing on masters athletes. An excuse to travel every year...lol. My masters have won 42 medals at World level, 23 gold.
I think we have similar experiences with the age situation. Most of the last 25 years I've been coaching, my athletes have fallen into two age groups 12-18 and 30+
My athletes have had some success at national junior and schools championships and my Masters athletes have won multiple national championships.
What I've found is that there is some correlation between athletic success and achievments in other areas of life...academic and artistic (one of my athletes ended up a dancer/performer on Disney cruise ships in the Caribbean ). I have had a couple of doctors and a vet (following in Dad's footsteps, who is also a member of the squad) The point of all that is to say that with young athletes there comes a point about 17-18 when school finishes and 'life' takes over. The focus switches, for many, from sport to university studies or careers. This also coincides with the ending of Little A's for the few who have still continued to that point. The very best of athletes continue on but for others they're lost to the sport....for a time.
So it's in that 18-30 age range where the numbers have (seemed to me) dropped from the glory days of the 50s, 60s and 70s. If you're not elite or at the least very competitive by 18, there's a fair chance your athletic career is essentially over. Very few plodders continue to compete. So to concede Kruddler's earlier point...That's probably a little different to the team sports where folks continue to play into their 20s and later, not just for the competition but also the friendships...and because of the 'team' aspect.
But here's the strange thing... After the age of 30 with careers established and family life beginning to settle, many return to the sport to compete as Masters. I wrote before about the young vet who was a national age champion. When she started her Dad came along to watch her train and one day he decided to have a go himself. Almost 20 years later he has multiple National championships under his belt. His daughter finished up about the time she started uni but has returned to the sport in the last few years and picked up a medal at the last National Masters.
We've lost that middle age range (18-30) and I suspect we've also lost a lot of talent that may have been successful on the international stage. That's probably not something that worries most folks. We've had a pretty successful Olympics. I just feel we could do things better and one of the first steps is making the transition from Little A's to Senior athletics a lot more seamless.
Yep Reading around there are quite a few clubs interested. Personally I'd rather keep him But the club may be looking at his age compared to Motlop and Durdin and choose to move him on. I think his value might not be in a swap for a pick ...but rather bundled with a pick for a player of need.
Realistically you wouldn't vote for Trump over Harris on trumps track record. All she has to do is play everything with a straight bat and she'll win u less the people in America are really dumb.
It'll depend on the media outlet as to how they report the result.
Having watched it,I thought she won it easily. She unsettled him with a few comments that hit his ego. The areas where he should have been strong, such as the border control he seemed to lose focus, and go off on a tangent or make some bizarre claims.
But your last point, about the intelligence of the nation, means nothing is certain.
So I watched the first half up to our first goal qtr time Bris 19 I50s to Carl 8 Bris 5.5.35 to Carl 0.0.0 at the first Carl goal by Cripps Bris 29 I50s to Carl 20 Bris 9.6.60 to Carl 1.0.6 It was hard to watch but I just wanted to know
Inside 50's ended up even 56-56 Don't go back and torture yourself again but
An interesting one or two from that 60-0 time would be ... How many times in that period the ball entering our 50 was marked by a Brisbane player. How many times first contact from our inside 50 was a Brisbane player who then saw it out of the 50
yes but in the first half we went inside fifty 24 times according to the stats. It came straight out. That's who we kicked it to and the forwards not getting busy enough.
Yep That's an example where stats tell only half a story. The ball went in and came straight back out. They controlled the air and delivery inside 50 was poor. On the ground it broke down around half-forward so a lot of those entries were shallow and they were able to mount attacks.
A lot of that is not due to anything other than a lack of defensive pressure in the forward line and that's why the scoreline ended up 60-0
