Europe --- In or Out

[Dr Gloom 3,190]

 

you can almost hear the maybot's circuits about to blow in the face of a question that exposes her complete lack of humanity.

does not compute, does not compute ... BOOM

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by Dr Gloom

[Meenzer 4,398]

 

What is wrong with her, honestly

[Alex 6,188]

A previously unthought of benefit

[Andrew 906]

OK so we've all made jokes and things but...has anyone given real consideration to the fact she might not actually be human?

 

The evidence is starting to build up, shes sort of like those tiny guys who pilot robot bodies in Men in Black...or the guy in the edgar suit.

[Dr Gloom 3,190]

 

[ewerk 6,834]

This is exactly why she won't risk another general election.

[Andrew 906]

9 minutes ago, ewerk said:

This is exactly why she won't risk another general election.

 

She WON the last one

[Rayvin 1,351]

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

[Andrew 906]

Just now, Rayvin said:

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

 

Shes the prime minister 

[Rayvin 1,351]

Just now, Andrew said:

 

Shes the prime minister 

 

Does she look happy about it?

[Meenzer 4,398]

No one 'won' the 1994 World Cup final, not really, but you don't see Roberto Baggio steering the UK towards Hard Brexit. Or something.

[Andrew 906]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

Does she look happy about it?

 

Thats not what the winner of a GE gets

[Rayvin 1,351]

1 minute ago, Andrew said:

 

Thats not what the winner of a GE gets

 

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.

[Andrew 906]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

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.

 

 

All of those are because shes hopeless as is her government, as it was before and during the election.

 

And shes still the PM.

 

And come to think of it, if she has so little of those things, what does that say about the people she beat?

[Rayvin 1,351]

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.

[Andrew 906]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

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.

 

Yeah but you also just argued that the PM didn't win the election because she doesn't look particularly happy.

[Rayvin 1,351]

2 minutes ago, Andrew said:

 

Yeah but you also just argued that the PM didn't win the election because she doesn't look particularly happy.

 

That was facetious.

 

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

[Meenzer 4,398]

No one ever wins an election where the Tories end up as the biggest party.

 

[Rayvin 1,351]

4 hours ago, Meenzer said:

No one ever wins an election where the Tories end up as the biggest party.

 

 

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

Edited July 23, 2018 by Rayvin

[TheGingerQuiff 1,807]

Just apologise n move on Rayvs

[Andrew 906]

7 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

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

 

Slippery slope though that. You can’t stand by the literal meaning of your words when you make a post admiring Jacob reed-mogg (inferred) on one hand and then ask for inference elsewhere when you say the winners of the election didn’t win the election.

[Meenzer 4,398]

7 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

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

 

Mate, I was just saying Tories are bad.

[Alex 6,188]

I would ask Rayvin if he thought he had a tendency to overthink things, if I didn’t think he would overthink it 

[ewerk 6,834]

Quote

Jeremy Corbyn will today claim there has already been an economic "benefit" of Brexit, as he launches a campaign to boost British manufacturing.

The Labour leader will suggest the crash in the pound that followed the 2016 referendum made sterling more competitive and should have helped UK exporters, had the government had a plan to let them capitalise on it.

It will come in a "build it in Britain" speech, in which Mr Corbyn will also attack the use of "cheap labour from abroad" and demand government contracts are kept in Britain instead of being given to "companies outside the UK".

The nod to potential economic benefits of leaving the EU will anger those in his party who want the Labour leader to soften his stance on Brexit, while his rhetoric on industry is likely to be compared to Donald Trump's "America first" approach to manufacturing.

He is expected to say: “Our exporters should be able to take proper advantage of the one benefit to them that Brexit has already brought - a more competitive pound. 

"After the EU referendum result, the pound became more competitive and that should have helped our exporters. But they are being sold out by a lack of a Conservative government industrial plan, which has left our economy far too reliant on imports.”

The pound plummeted in the wake of the vote to leave the EU, wiping billions off the economy and leaving many businesses and consumers worse off. Sterling is currently worth around 14 per cent less against the Euro than it was before the Brexit vote.

Launching Labour's "Build it in Britain" campaign, Mr Corbyn is expected to condemn what he will call a reliance on migrant workers, and criticise the government for awarding contracts to foreign companies.

Speaking to the EEF manufacturers union, he will say: “For the last 40 years, a magical kind of thinking has dominated the way Britain is run. We’ve been told that it’s good - advanced even - for our country to manufacture less and less and instead rely on cheap labour from abroad to produce imports, while we focus on the City of London and the finance sector."

 

[Renton 2,189]

10 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Has rayvin apologised enough yet?