Rayvin

This is absolutely my curse. I might lay off the politics sections for a while, i seem to be inadvertently annoying people.

Yes, you've restated the 'technically' bit. Well done EDIT - Maybe need new disclaimers tbh: "Sometimes I make posts that require you to infer something beyond what I have explicitly stated." I might start adding these to my signature. The meaning was that the Tories lost their majority in an ill conceived attempt to establish a larger majority, and therefore failed in their political objective in calling the thing in the first place, thus weakening their position compared to where they were to begin with. Therefore, while they technically won the GE, they were net worse off than they were going into it. Thus, politically, they lost. But you knew all that didn't you

@Andrew Looks like I'm putting a tenner into the SBR Foundation

That was facetious. Although I do stand by the comment that politically, no one won the GE.

I acknowledged Corbyn's failings and unsuitability to lead, and my error in backing him, months ago. I'm not CT. Even though I still think Momentum made a solid fist of that GE considering where they had to come back from in the polls.

That wasn't the main point anyway tbh.

Do they get authority? Does she have that? Anyway this is pointless, yes she won the GE She has no authority, majority, mandate or power, but she is technically the PM.

Does she look happy about it?

No one 'won' the last one. Not really.

+1. Thanks. Rees-Mogg is a cunt

Appreciated, but it was a useful contrast in the wider context of the argument.

Yeah I just edited in Ken Clarke for my previous post - but for the others, I don't know.

I described him as 'appearing' to be. I used that exact word.

He appears more principled than any other Tory, to me (low bar, but still). He appears very principled to the right, which is why they are rallying around him. This is why he is a problem for us. EDIT - Actually, I forgot Ken Clarke exists. So he doesn't get the 'than any other Tory' bit.

Can we all agree that there is a difference between being principled, and appearing principled? Is that possible?

Who cares what they are? He's perceived as sticking to them and the abortion one is a good example of it. All of what you said about Corbyn is true, none of it changes my point about why he was elected as leader of the party. I didn't say I admire JRM. This was my original post: Where does it say I admire that? I've merely pointed out that politicians who talk honestly and don't hide from what they believe, appear to be the 'in thing'. From a strategic point of view, that's worth keeping in mind. Personally, I do believe that sticking to ones principles is important and valuable. As do you. My position on that particular consideration doesn't change based on the context of the opinion, and I don't know why it would. It would in fact just make me a hypocrite who doesn't stick to my own principles ffs. But it doesn't mean I admire the man or what he stands for, or that he continues to stick to them. Sticking to your principles is good; not all principles are good. I think it's possible to hold both beliefs... I believe Rees-Mogg is a cunt.

Well no because as far as I can recall, Tim Farron lied about his views on religion or at least kept flip flopping on the issue. That's kind of the opposite to Rees-Mogg in this context. I'm going to start adding the following disclaimer to help people read my arguments properly: I believe Rees-Mogg is a cunt.

Yours is an emotionally charged position. His principles are his principles, and imposing a personal moral judgement on them changes nothing about my argument. I don't admire him in any way, but those who share or have sympathy with his principles, do. Not everyone has the same set of principles ffs. And Corbyn was successful in getting elected because he stuck to his principles and voters perceived him as being a man they could finally trust. Whether he has effectively done that as leader is irrelevant. It's a key reason he is where he is. And whether Rees-Mogg will stick to his while in power is irrelevant, if the perception gets him over the line. And this is absolutely how he is perceived. I can see we're heading for the same "How could this happen" as we did with Trump tbh.

It's a step further than the vast, vast majority of our MPs would be prepared to go. Look, I'm not saying the guy is anything other than a sneering, out of touch rich kid who is presumably stuck in a bubble made up entirely of people who smoke pipes and wear monocles, but if we are to understand why the man is popular, and a threat, we need to at least look at his strengths. And he is riding a similar wave with the right to the one Corbyn rode with the left.

He has nothing to gain politically by sticking to his Catholic view on abortion. That only hurts his ambitions.

Formidable argument I've said as much before tbh, it's not a new position. The guy was grilled over his anti-abortion position and stood by it. He's been grilled over his Brexit position and stood by it. He is far more honest about what he believes in than most politicians, especially on the Tory side. Happy to take evidence to the contrary though. And I should add that my acknowledgement that he appears to stick to his principles is not an endorsement of said principles.

Interesting video - I don't know if NBC cut this section although it seriously wouldn't surprise me - but this is Putin IMO confirming that they did mess up the US elections (while denying it), and stating confidently why we're in no position to say anything about it, really:

We're all united on JRM it seems, but it's worth noting that he appears to be uncompromising on his principles, relatively honest about what they are, and prepared to stand by them. Not unlike Corbyn - and popular with the right wingers for the same reason. Another sign perhaps that if the centre could just get someone who had an actual backbone, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Tbf it sounds like that might be 60% of our overall budget.

I mean I look back at it with amusement now tbh. I made more of an effort with Bloodborne and must have got about 3 or 4 hours in before giving up. I just can't stand having being relegated back to a checkpoint I passed 30 minutes ago and redoing the whole thing. Plus it punished you for not finding your dead remains or dying before you got back to them. Coupled with a lack of patience which meant I would try to speed through the sections I had worked through previously before dying (and inevitably take more damage due to carelessness), it's just not for me. I'm not the kind of person who should play these games