England will play India in the Women’s World Twenty20 semi-finals after a narrow defeat in their final Group A game against West Indies in St Lucia.

After losing six wickets in the first 10 overs, England posted 115-8 thanks to an excellent partnership between Anya Shrubsole and Sophia Dunkley.

Shrubsole took two wickets in her first over, but Deandra Dottin and Shemaine Campbelle steadied the hosts.

The defending champions won with three balls to spare and face Australia next.

Both semi-finals will take place on Thursday, with the West Indies match starting at 20:00 GMT and England’s beginning about four hours later.

England were put in to bat by the hosts and were quickly in trouble when Danni Wyatt was caught behind off Shakera Selman in the first over.

They stuttered to 50-6 off 10 overs, but after Britney Cooper’s brilliant run-out dismissed Lauren Winfield for a duck, Shrubsole and Dunkley moved England towards a competitive total with a seventh-wicket stand of 58.

Both batters hit a six apiece, with Shrubsole falling to the final ball of the innings when Dottin pulled off an outstanding catch diving to her right.

Shrubsole’s excellent form continued when she took the ball for the second over of the West Indies reply, bowling Hayley Matthews with her first delivery and Stafanie Taylor with her fourth.

Shrubsole’s hat-trick had inspired England to victory over South Africa in their third match, but this time Dottin calmed their opponents by hitting 46.

Left-arm spinner Kirstie Gordon tied down and then dismissed Dottin, but Campbelle picked up the scoring rate to take West Indies near to victory, and was missed by Dunkley off a steepling chance in the penultimate over.

It was a frantic finish at the Darren Sammy Stadium, with substitute Fran Wilson allowing a catching chance to go through her hands and then for four, and keeper Amy Jones also dropping a skier – although in the aftermath Cooper was run out by an alert Winfield.

Shrubsole stepped up for the final over with five needed by the West Indies, but after dismissing Campbelle for 45, she saw her next delivery sent to the point boundary by Kycia Knight to give the hosts victory with three balls to spare.

England captain Heather Knight on BBC Test Match Special: “What a game of cricket, what a great atmosphere – I couldn’t be more proud of the fight they showed. A little bit more composure maybe needed to get over the line, but what a game.

“Ideally, you want a player from the top five to bat for most of the innings, and with the ball I think the spinners went slightly over their lengths but in general our bowling’s been brilliant.

“Sophia Dunkley hits in weird areas, it’s difficult to set fields to her, and she and Anya kept us in the game. Australia and India both look very strong, it looks like it’s going to be a great couple of semi-finals.

“Dani Hazell was a bit unlucky as a few of the balls just went over fielders’ heads – we’ll have to assess what’s going to be our strongest XI against India. I’ve got a bit of a hoarse throat trying to get fielders’ attention, but what an atmosphere to play in.”

Ex-England captain Charlotte Edwards on TMS: “West Indies look like they can win from anywhere – my money was definitely on England with five overs to bowl. What an incredible game to play in front of a crowd like this – it’s what the tournament needed.

“I think the noise affected England as three or four catches went up [and were dropped], but hopefully they’ll react better in a semi-final.”

This Saturday Night Live sketch works a lot better if you imagine Steve Carell is playing a dad version of his legendary Anchorman character, Brick Tamland.

Of course, Brick’s ignorance was sweet and strangely wholesome. In contrast, Carell’s SNL dad is more of a clueless doormat.

The most impressive thing about this sketch is how it makes 6-foot-2 Pete Davidson look like a high schooler. That’s some real TV magic at work right there.

England have waited more than a decade to provide the “new” Wembley with a game, a victory and an occasion that would live indelibly in the memory bank – but Gareth Southgate’s side delivered it against Croatia.

This may have been the Uefa Nations League, still the infant poor relation when set alongside the World Cup and Euros, but the dramatic manner in which England transformed potential relegation from their group into a 2-1 victory that sent them to next summer’s finals had great significance in the wider context.

And how it was reflected in the joyous celebrations on and off the field at Wembley as ‘Three Lions’ – the anthem Croatia painted as a hymn to an opponent’s arrogance with its ‘Football’s Coming Home’ message before beating England in the World Cup semi-final in July – blasted out around the stadium at the final whistle with thousands joining in.

This song, in reality a lament to failure and disappointment, was the soundtrack to Euro ’96, when England manager Southgate was a member of the team that made a real connection with the country for a few short weeks.

The meaning and the atmosphere was not lost on him on Sunday as this win reaffirmed how England, after unexpectedly reaching the last four in Russia, again became a team the nation could relate to.

This was not Euro ’96 or the World Cup. It was not big enough to be revenge for the loss to Croatia in Moscow. It was the Nations League.

This was, however, a win and an England performance that played to everything Southgate and his squad built in the summer and what they needed to move on to the next stage.

What England needed in the afterglow of the summer was added substance to a style that had started to emerge under Southgate as he moulded a promising group of players for the future.

And on this winner-takes-all afternoon at Wembley, England and Southgate ticked the boxes required to revive and emphasise the hope and optimism shaped by those deeds in Russia.

England hinted at their further development and maturity post-Russia with their first win in Spain since 1987 in October and confirmed it here against Croatia, who have been Kryptonite to their hopes in major tournaments in the past.

Croatia have their own glorious memories of this new Wembley after inflicting the fatal defeat on England and manager Steve McClaren here in November 2007 to end their qualification hopes for Euro 2008.

Zlatko Dalic’s side again overcame England when it mattered in Russia and looked on course to relegate them to the second tier of the Nations League when they took the lead through Andrej Kramaric just before the hour.

The equation was simple. Two goals and a win or relegation. The odds were against an England team with little form to suggest they would be winners in these circumstances.

This time England finally cracked the Croatian code. Another psychological barrier was crossed.

In doing so England showed character, resilience, ability, fighting spirit and exuberance that has eluded them in the past.

They scored twice in the last 12 minutes to not only avoid relegation from Group A4 but to send themselves to the Nations League finals in Portugal next June. They have also secured a play-off place for Euro 2020, a safety net in the event they miss out through the traditional qualifying route.

The roar that swept around Wembley as Harry Kane slid on to Ben Chilwell’s late free-kick at the far post was one rarely heard at previous England games at the new Wembley and carried an air of confirmation this is a side the public can relate to.

England looked jaded and lacklustre when they lost to Spain at Wembley and scratched past Switzerland at Leicester in September – here that connection was back and Southgate felt it.

“The biggest thing is that connection with the fans,” he said. “I haven’t seen the new Wembley like that. The way it feels with the fans is special. It’s giving us the energy to go on and break new barriers.”

And then there is the small matter of topping a tough section including Spain and World Cup finalists Croatia.

“We haven’t sat back after the summer and preened ourselves,” said Southgate. “We’ve progressed. People can see the style and start to believe in what we’re doing.

“We didn’t discuss relegation beforehand. We just saw this as an opportunity. We saw it as a quarter-final. It’s great as we had to live with the pressure. If we can get an atmosphere like that we will be very strong.

“We’ve come out of an incredibly tough group – in terms of form and world ranking the toughest one there was.”

England relied on the established order as Kane emerged as the match-winner but the development of this team was illustrated by two players who did not figure in the perceived success of the World Cup.

Leicester’s Harry Maguire was one of the stars of Russia but he now faces the serious challenge of Liverpool defender Joe Gomez, whose pace and composure makes him a perfect fit alongside John Stones. Will Maguire get back in?

And in Leicester’s Chilwell, Southgate has found the solution to a left-back position that has been a weakness in recent times.

In the first half England played with the sort of verve, pace and attacking swagger that saw them pick Spain apart in Seville. The ruthlessness was missing but the way in which they responded to Croatia going ahead against the run of play allowed them to reveal a new string to their bow in the ability to recover from a setback with measure and achieve the required result.

That will instil Southgate and his squad with even more self-confidence and belief in what they are trying to achieve – and it means they should travel to Portugal for June’s finals with great positivity.

Image: Sportsfile/Corbis via Getty Images

Facebook’s former chief security officer is defending the social network amid the fallout from the on the company this past week.

Alex Stamos, who was the company’s CSO from 2015 up until the summer of 2018, wrote a piece published in on Saturday responding to the New York Times report. Stamos attempted to dispel the Times’ report claiming that Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, fearing blowback, delayed taking action following his team’s discovery of Russian interference in the 2016 election via a misinformation campaign on the platform.

Stamos confirmed in the Post that Sandberg, Facebook’s COO, did indeed yell at him the day after he debriefed Facebook’s Board of Directors about the company’s investigation into Russian influence. Stamos claimed that Sandberg “felt blindsided” by his account.

However, the former exec was adamant that neither Sandberg nor anyone at Facebook told him not to investigate Russian influence or obfuscate his findings. Although, Stamos did admit the company should have taken action sooner and been more transparent in disclosing what was uncovered.

“At the time, technology companies were so enamored with the utility of our own products and so focused on sophisticated attacks from U.S. adversaries such as Russia and China that we overlooked less advanced but still effective propaganda operations,” he wrote. 

“To be clear, no one at the company ever told me not to examine Russian activity, nor did anyone attempt to lie about our findings, but Facebook should have responded to these threats much earlier and handled disclosure in a more transparent manner.”

The piece, titled “Yes, Facebook made mistakes in 2016. But we weren’t the only ones,” still attempted to deflect from Facebook’s specific role in the spread of the 2016 Russian influence campaigns and shift focus toward the government and the media’s failures on the issue as well.

“Facebook’s shortcomings do not stand alone. The massive U.S. intelligence community failed to provide actionable intelligence on Russia’s information-warfare goals and capabilities before the election and offered a dearth of assistance afterward. Technology companies can build tools and teams to look inward on their products, but they will never have true geostrategic insight or ability to penetrate hostile countries,” Stamos wrote. 

He then went on to talk about how the relationship between government and tech has been better in 2018, and credited intelligence professionals for the improvement. Stamos also knocked lawmakers for what he called “public grandstanding at investigative hearings” and took aim at the mainstream media for publishing stolen emails and documents from the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. He claims the choice to publish this material “rewarded the hackers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU).”

“The sad truth is that blocking Russian propaganda would have required Facebook to ban stories from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and cable news — not to mention this very paper,” Stamos noted. 

Even if media hasn’t ever grappled with its role in the 2016 election, as Stamos suggested, it has nothing to do with the allegations leveled at Facebook. By the time the hacked emails were released, they were newsworthy and certainly fair game for coverage. 

Stamos stated that all parties involved need to come together to avoid a 2016 foreign interference repeat in 2020, and had some suggestions for how that could happen. He’d like to see a political advertising standard set by Congress, with additional input and support from companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. He also wants clarity on the responsibilities of government and large tech industries and the cooperation between the two.

As for the media, Stamos would like to see news outlets publish clear standards as it relates to reporting on newsworthy data leaks.

Lastly, Stamos wrote that it’s up to the people of the U.S. to adapt to a media environment “in which several dozen gatekeepers no longer control what is newsworthy.” While definitely a valid point, the sheer amount of suspiciously sourced news spread over an increasing number of platforms will certainly .

England’s Anya Shrubsole bowls Hayley Matthews & Stafanie Taylor in the second over of the West Indies 116 run chase in their Women’s World Twenty20 tie.

FOLLOW LIVE: England v West Indies – in-play clips, TMS & text

WATCH MORE: ‘So close it’s unreal’ – England’s Jones gets lucky

Available to UK users only.

Shopping for the tech geek in your life can feel like a major challenge — but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Instead of trying to find yet another gadgets for the tech geek in your life who seems to have everything, why not buy them one of these very low-tech tees? 

Whether you’re shopping for the engineer in your life, or just looking to pick up something fun for the office exchange, even the geekiest among us will appreciate these shirts.

Ah, debugging. This “6 Stages of Debugging” tee is both too real and instantly relatable to anyone who spends their days writing code. Get them this shirt and maybe the next debugging cycle will be a little less painful.

Best for: Programmers, obviously.

$18.95, Amazon

The dreaded BSoD, striking fear into the hearts of PC owners for 25 years. Luckily, it’s much more amusing in t-shirt form. 

Best for: Smug Mac owners who want to troll their PC-using coworkers.

$16.95, Amazon

Oh, Wikipedia. It’s both an endless source of knowledge and a purveyor of sometimes questionable “facts.” This shirt is all that and strikes exactly the right balance of nerdy and self-depreciating.

Best for: Your teacher friends (they’ll know why).

$22, Snorg Tees

Sure, the Commodore 64 hasn’t been culturally relevant since Bush 41 was in office, but the 8-bit computer still has a place in the hearts of many. So why not honor it with a tee. Just because the computer is dead doesn’t mean the logo isn’t worth hanging onto.

Best for: That friend who loves to hang onto obsolete tech.

$22, TeeFury

It’s pretty self-explanatory, but we love the look of this ‘Motherboard heart’ shirt. It comes in a variety of colors and sizes for men and women.

Best for: Westworld fans.

$14.95 – $19.95, CafePress

If you’re old enough to remember floppy disks, VHS tapes, and cassettes, then you’ll appreciate this tribute to old-school media storage (which is available in 22 different colors). If you’re not old enough to remember, well, you can always wear it ironically. 

Best for: Your friend who still talks wistfully about their Walkman.

$12.99, Amazon

When all emoji fails, you can’t go wrong with a shruggie, so why not have it on your shirt. Yes, we have real emoji, but sometimes a good, old-fashioned shruggie is best. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Best for: Your office gift exchange.

$20, Snorg Tees

From afar, it looks like a generic keyboard, but look closely and you’ll quickly see the joke. It’s a subtle but delightful joke, and the design’s available in men’s and women’s tees as well a crewneck sweatshirt.

Best for: Anyone who loves a good dad joke (which, let’s be honest, is all of us).

$25, Threadless

Yes, really, another spacebar joke! But if there’s one thing everyone has an opinion on, it’s whether or not you should be a one-space kind of person or a two-spacer. The magic of this shirt? It appeals to both sides.

Best for: Grammar nerds.

$19.99, TShirt Laundry

Ah yes, the age-old advice so good and true that even South Park has hilariously spoofed it. It’s may be a meme now, but there’s a reason why “unplug it, and plug back in,” has been a go-to for 20+ years. 

Best for: The family member always fixing grandma’s computer.

Cafe Press, $24.95

Colombo, Sri Lanka – The three men at the heart of Sri Lanka’s weeks-long power struggle have held direct talks for the first time since the crisis erupted, but their meeting failed to reach a breakthrough, according to officials.

President Maithripala Sirisena called for the talks days after several parliamentary votes on a no-confidence motion against his newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa descended into chaos, with angry politicians hurling chilli paste, chairs and books at legislators backing Ranil Wickremsinghe, the deposed leader.

Joined by members of their parties, the president and the two rival prime ministers met on Sunday for more than two hours at the president’s office in the capital, Colombo, but did not appear to shift from their previous positions on the no-confidence vote.

Both Sirisena and Rajapaksa have rejected the outcome of the voice votes, in which 122 legislators in the the 225-member House voted against the latter, claiming the speaker had failed to follow proper procedures.

Supporters of Wickremesinghe, however, accuse pro-Rajapaksa politicians of disrupting proceedings in a bid to block the votes. 

Speaking to reporters after Sunday’s meeting, Lakshman Kiriella, a legislator from Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP), said the party told the president “we can show majority again”, but he “showed no interest”. 

Sirisena, in a statement after the meeting, said he would only accept a no-confidence motion if a vote was “taken by name of members or by electronic voting”.

A voice vote, though technically legal, was not acceptable on such an important matter as it lacked transparency, he added.

He also said all parties had agreed that future parliamentary proceedings will be “conducted peacefully”.

‘Drag impasse’

Harsha de Silva, another UNP lesgislator, in a post on Twitter said Sirisena was giving “lame excuses of procedure” to “drag impasse along”.

No breakthrough at so called all party meeting with Pres @MaithripalaS now. They want to drag impasse along giving lame excuses of procedure as #FakePM does NOT have 113. What a damn shame, taking #SriLanka down for your political survival. Go, MR Go. For Gods sake Go! #CoupLK pic.twitter.com/ef1cKJU7aP

— Harsha de Silva (@HarshadeSilvaMP) November 18, 2018

A source close to the president said Sirisena, who has repeatedly pledged not to accept Wickremesinghe as prime minister again, was “frosty” towards the deposed leader, but cordial to others.

Some legislators at the meeting had suggested the pair meet for direct talks alone, but the president refused, the source added.

Relations between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, who joined forces to defeat Rajapaksa in a 2015 presidential election, soured amid disagreements over government administration, economic reform and an alleged assassination plot against the president.

The tensions boiled over on October 26, when Sirisena fired Wickremesinghe in a move widely denounced as unconstitutional, and replaced him with Rajapaksa, a controversial former president accused of corruption and human rights abuses.

The president then dissolved parliament and called for snap elections in January, but the Supreme Court suspended that order until it delivered a verdict in the case on December 7, allowing the legislature to reconvene on November 14.

Snap elections

Namal Rajapaksa, the former president’s son and a legislator, in a Twitter post on Sunday said he was “disappointed” that talks had ended inconclusively.

He added: “We reiterate our call for a general election so that people can decide who should be their government.”

Chandani Kirinde, a Colombo-based journalist, said she believes Sirisena’s strategy was to “drag this on till December 7, hoping the Supreme Court upholds the dissolution of parliament”.

The crisis was unlikely to get resolved when parliament meets again on Monday, she said in a Twitter post. 

Rajith Keerthi Tennakoon, a Colombo-based political analyst, said the leaders’ failure to break the stalemate on Sunday showed that the gulf between the opposing sides had “only widened”.

“Both sides are not in a position to back down, with the president insisting that due process had not been followed in presenting the no-confidence motions – this shows that he is not ready to appoint Wickremesinghe as prime minister,” he said.

Asanga Welikala, a Sri Lankan law professor at the University of Edinburgh, blamed the talks’ failure on Sirisena, saying the president “seems to be totally oblivious to the massive damage” he was doing to Sri Lanka because of his “personal issues” with Wickremesinghe.

The protracted crisis was straining the country’s struggling economy, affecting tourism and foreign aid, he said.

“The president has repeatedly violated the constitution, and so far he’s refusing to be checked by parliament or moderate his behaviour in the face of a rebuke by the Supreme Court,” Welikala said, warning that Sirisena’s actions were “disastrous” for the country’s democracy.

Rathindra Kuruwita reported from Colombo. Zaheena Rasheed reported and wrote from Doha

Alexander Zverev stunned world number one Novak Djokovic in straight sets to win the season-ending ATP Finals and earn the biggest victory of his career.

Djokovic, 31, was the heavy favourite to win a sixth finals title but was outclassed 6-4 6-3 by the German.

Zverev, the third seed, broke Djokovic for a 5-4 lead in the first set, then served three big aces to take the set.

The 21-year-old continued to dominate in the second and sealed a memorable victory as Djokovic faltered.

“I’m unbelievably happy. Obviously it is the biggest title I have ever won,” said Zverev, who took home about £2m in prize money.

“How I played today, how I won it, for me it’s just amazing.”

He had lost to Djokovic in straight sets in the round-robin stage but, after beating Roger Federer in Saturday’s semi-finals, produced a more confident performance to stop the Serb equalling Federer’s haul of end-of-season titles.

Zverev missed his first championship point before hitting a sensational backhand down the line for victory, falling to the court in a mixture of disbelief and celebration as Djokovic jumped over the net to congratulate him.

“You definitely played much better than you did the group stage,” Djokovic told him with a laugh. “You deserved to win.”

Djokovic rattled by courageous Zverev

Zverev has long been heralded as the young player most likely to carry the mantle for the men’s game once the likes of Djokovic, Federer, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray have retired, with the 6ft 6in German’s booming serve, crunching groundstrokes and improved play around the net showing he has all the facets needed to reach the very top.

Against Djokovic he also showed mental resilience and staying power in gruelling rallies to prove he is the real deal.

A high-quality opening set remained on serve in the opening eight games, both players only managing to win three receiving points up to then, before a stray forehand from Djokovic – a rare unforced error this week – brought the first break point of the match in the following game.

Djokovic landed a deep first serve but when it came back over to his side of the court could only crack a forehand into the net.

For the first time in the tournament he had lost his serve, and for the first time he looked rattled.

The true test for Zverev was to keep his nerve and serve out for the first set, a question answered by the German firing down three aces before sealing the set as Djokovic went long with a backhand after a short rally.

Time for Zverev to shine at the Slams?

Zverev kept up the attack at the start of the second set, creating two break points in the opening game – one by outlasting Djokovic in a 26-shot rally – and taking the second opportunity.

Djokovic was somewhat gifted the break back as Zverev produced two double faults but any thought that might swing the momentum back to the Serb proved unfounded, Zverev breaking again to hold a lead which he would not relinquish.

Djokovic, who had won 35 of his previous 37 matches, suddenly lost the control he had shown all week and was unable to make Zverev serve out for victory as the German broke again to win in one hour and 19 minutes.

Zverev’s next challenge is to show he can perform over the five-set format at the Grand Slams.

This year he reached his first Grand Slam quarter-final at the French Open and it looks only a matter of time – especially with eight-time major champion Ivan Lendl now in his corner – that he will go deeper into the biggest tournaments.

My game fell apart – Djokovic

Djokovic started the week as the hot favourite to win at the O2, following a remarkable resurgence which saw him win Wimbledon and the US Open on his way to regaining the number one ranking after being outside the top 20 in May.

Djokovic’s relentless returning has been the hallmark of his game and before the final he stressed the importance of putting the ball back into play on Zverev’s first serve.

Although he managed to do that regularly, Djokovic perhaps did not account for Zverev being able to stick with him in the long rallies.

For once Djokovic was unable to wear down his opponent and, coupled with his below-par service game, was unable to seriously threaten Zverev’s serve.

Djokovic appeared to wane mentally as the match slipped away from his grasp, although defeat here cannot take the shine off an extraordinary year.

“He had big serves. I wasn’t returning well,” Djokovic said. “I wasn’t making him move too much. I was making way too many unforced errors.

“From 4-4 in the first set, my game fell apart. But if we put things in perspective it has been an amazing year and a great comeback.”

A big step up for Zverev – analysis

BBC Sport tennis correspondent Russell Fuller

Zverev was so good in the first set – serving consistently at over 140mph – that Djokovic looked punch drunk in the second.

The world number one had played an almost perfect match against Kevin Anderson on Saturday, but after his serve was broken three times in a row, his belief drained.

Zverev has already won three Masters events, but this title is a step up. The next step is a Grand Slam: Ivan Lendl is now helping his dad with the coaching and, for the record, Roger Federer had not won a Grand Slam at the age Zverev is now.

There should be a lot to look forward to in 2019. Djokovic has dominated the second half of the season, but the only three players to have beaten him since the beginning of Wimbledon are no more than 22 years old.

Game, set and stats…

• Zverev is the first player to beat both Djokovic and Federer in the same ATP Finals
• He is also the first to beat the top two seeds in the semi-finals and final of the event since Andre Agassi in 1990
• Zverev, aged 21 years and six months, is the youngest champion at the ATP Finals since Djokovic in 2008
• Zverev is the first German winner since Boris Becker in 1995

Doubles victory for Bryan & Sock

Mike Bryan and Jack Sock won the doubles title in thrilling fashion, coming from a set down to beat French pair Pierre-Hugues Herbert and Nicolas Mahut 5-7 6-1 13-11.

Bryan, 40, only paired up with Sock in June because brother Bob, with whom he has won 16 Grand Slam titles and Olympic gold, is currently recovering from a hip injury.

Image: Chelsea Lauren/Variety/REX/Shutterstock

It’s the afternoon of a day ending with “y,” so you know Donald Trump has offended someone already.

Look no further than Trump’s Fox News interview with Chris Wallace. A clip from that interview went viral earlier on Sunday when Wallace asked the president to respond to comments by Bill McRaven, the former Navy SEAL who oversaw the operation the ended in the death of Osama Bin Laden.

McRaven had previously criticized Trump’s frequent attacks against the media — specifically, his characterization of the press as “the enemy of the people” — as “the greatest threat to democracy” he’s ever witnessed. The former SEAL spoke up again in August after Trump’s apparently punitive revocation of former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance.

Before Wallace could even get his McRaven question out — he only got as far as detailing the man’s record of service — Trump interrupted: “Hillary Clinton fan.”

Wallace tried to continue, but Trump interrupted him again, an angry edge in his voice: “Excuse me. Hillary Clinton fan.”

Wallace continued again and finished his question. Trump responded, first by describing McRaven as a “backer” of Clinton and Barack Obama and then by hinting that McRaven is incompetent, saying “wouldn’t it have been nice if we got Osama Bin Laden a lot sooner than that?”

(It went even further than that. And this was after he boasted about how much he’s supposedly done for the military.)

Trump effectively minimized and then summarily dismissed a literal U.S. hero’s service to the country because he couldn’t take a little criticism. He also seemingly made up McRaven’s political leanings. The ill-advised comments prompted some outcry, as you might imagine.

You get the idea.

A few hours later, as the noise around Trump’s comments to Wallace turned into a thunderous roar, the beleaguered president took to Twitter and dropped this turd of a tweet. (Pun definitely intended.)

He’s talking about Adam Schiff, the U.S. Representative for California who is currently the Ranking Member of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. As the top Democrat in the House of Representatives charged with investigating Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, Schiff has been a thorn in Trump’s side and a semi-frequent target of the president’s rage.

And yes, his name is Schiff. Two Fs. Not what Trump wrote.

Now, it could be a typo. The letters T and F are fairly close to one another on the standard QWERTY keyboard that most smartphones employ. Trump farts out so many tweets on a daily basis, he could have easily punched in the wrong letters. 

Or maybe it’s an autocorrect issue. Is the president secretly a fan of the Canadian comedy series, Schitt’s Creek? It could be that he’s texted about it enough that “Schitt” comes up as an autocorrect suggestion.

Of course, given Trump’s rep, both as president and as a human being, the most likely explanation is he committed an intentional typo in the name of juvenile humor. Which, hey, nothing against juvenile humor. But it’s maybe not the right tone to employ publicly when you’re the U.S. president, especially when you’re using it in the context of a comment that some might construe as an obstruction of justice.

Of course, that kind of ridiculous behavior from a grown-ass adult would get people talking about something other than Trump’s egregious put-down of a largely apolitical military veteran’s service.

But what do I know? Maybe it was a typo, or an unwanted autocorrect. As Mashable’s Matt Binder quipped in Slack when we talked about this whole episode, “hard to tell with our very smart 150-dimensional chess playing president.”

Indeed.

Still, social media did its thing and assumed Trump was acting with the worst intentions. In fairness to social media, there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that’s the safe assumption. Brace yourself for Trump burns and poop puns. Even Schiff joined in to take his shot.

Politics in 2018 is one hell of a ride.

Jerusalem – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has urged his coalition partners not to bring down the government, saying holding snap elections now would be “irresponsible”.

Netanyahu made the remarks in a televised statement on Sunday, after meeting Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, a key coalition partner.

The meeting was seen as a last attempt to prevent the collapse of the coalition – which currently has a one-seat majority in parliament – but ended without a conclusion.

Netanyahu’s government was thrown into crisis earlier this week, when hardline Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman resigned over a ceasefire agreement with Hamas, the group administering the besieged Gaza Strip.

Naming himself as defence chief, Netanyahu said in his televised address that “there is no place for politics or personal considerations” when it comes to Israel’s security.

Following Lieberman’s resignation, the right-wing Jewish Home party had said that it would also leave the coalition unless its party leader, Education Minister Naftali Bennet, took on the the post of defence minister – a move reportedly supported by Kahlon, the leader of Kulanu party.

Lieberman quits

A coalition collapse would move national elections to the spring of 2019, well ahead of its original date in November next year. 

This prospect came closer on Wednesday, when Lieberman announced that his Yisrael Beiteinu party would leave the ruling coalition due to Netanyahu’s “surrender to terrorism”, referring to the ceasefire in Gaza agreed between Israel and Hamas-led factions the previous day.

Lieberman called the Egyptian-mediated truce “a capitulation to terror” and demanded harsher retaliation.

The ceasefire ended a major flare-up of violence, which saw Israeli forces launching dozens of aerial attacks across the Strip and Palestinian factions firing more than 400 rockets at Israel in retaliation for a botched undercover Israeli operation that killed seven Palestinians and one Israeli soldier. Overall, at least 14 Palestinians were killed over two days of violence.

“Despite the difference in opinion, I tried to stay a faithful member of the government for as long as possible … but it has failed,” Lieberman said.

But the former defence minister had also attacked Netanyahu even before the ceasefire deal, angry at the prime minister’s decision to allow Qatari cash and fuel supplies into Gaza and to shelve the demolition of the Bedouin village Khan al-Ahmar in the occupied West Bank.

On Sunday evening, the Jewish Home party said Netanyahu’s announcement “does not change anything” regarding its demand that Bennett be appointed as defence chief.

“This is a government that is nominally right-wing but acts left-wing,” the party said in a statement, as reported by the Times of Israel. 

“The government is a government with leftist policies, a collapsed deterrence against Hamas, the failure to evacuate Khan al-Ahmar, a weak policy toward terrorists and their families after terror attacks.”

Israeli media reported that Bennett, along with Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, are planning to resign on Monday.

For his part, Netanyahu said on Sunday there was “no need” for national elections to be held during a “period of sensitive security”, warning that snap polls could result in a left-wing administration taking control.

“We know what happens when elements in a right-wing government led to the government being toppled, like in 1992 and in 1999, which brought us the disaster of Oslo and the disaster of the [Second] Intifada,” Netanyahu said, mentioning the elections in which the Labour Party came to power.

‘More to the right’

However, several commentators and political analysts noted that an upcoming election would bring about little change in the status quo of Israeli politics and discourse.

They pointed to “centrist” leaders Yair Lapid and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, as well as Labour Party members, who all criticised Netanyahu’s “capitulation” to Hamas – just like Lieberman and Bennett. 

“In all likelihood, the next government is going to be very similar to this one, with a renewed mandate, probably a more right-wing mandate, but the parties that will be part of the next coalition will probably be exactly the same as we see now,” Haggai Matar, executive Director and journalist of the local +972 Magazine, told Al Jazeera.

He added that Israel currently has the most right-wing, nationalist government it has ever had, yet it’s close to falling because “it’s not right-wing enough”.

With the possibility that Netanyahu may be losing support against hawkish political adversaries, Matar argued the prime minister may feel pressured to launch a military operation to appease voters.

On the day Lieberman announced his resignation, Matar noted in an article that Israelis will be headed to the polls with one question in mind: “how much force should we use against Palestinians?”

“The answers most political parties will offer will range from ‘a lot’ to ‘a lot more’”, he wrote.

Peace deal stalled?

Israeli journalist Meron Rapoport told Al Jazeera that Netanyahu’s image has weakened following an ongoing corruption investigation and the ceasefire in Gaza – but the outcome of a snap election still would not diverge from the status quo.

“Netanyahu is weaker than what people thought maybe a month or two months ago,” Rapaport said, pointing to the poor election showing of Netanyahu’s Likud party two weeks ago.

Rapoport said there may be a chance of a centrist government, but “even they won’t be going into negotiations with Palestinians”.

The looming elections may stall the presentation of the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, which US President Donald Trump said in September he planned to unveil by January.

The details of the proposal are yet to be revealed, but Trump said in September at the UN General Assembly that he would prefer “two states” as a solution, which Netanyahu has refused to back, insisting that Palestinian self-governance must include Israeli security control.

“I think [the peace deal] will not be comfortable for Netanyahu,” Rapoport said.

“Of course it will not be comfortable for Palestinians, but they are used to it. But I think it will be something that’s hard to swallow.

“But there are some new trends in Israel… There is a need for a new leadership; it was very evident in the local elections so I personally wouldn’t be totally surprised if we have a prime minister who is not Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Looking ahead, Matar said a new government would face “the ongoing pressure to go more and more to the right and use more and more violence.

“Currently there’s not enough checks and balances [internationally nor nationally] or opposition from the left that is actually offering an alternative that would limit how far Netanyahu can go with this.”