Rayvin

They're not going to get another vote until Brexit is well out of the way, probably in decades. Well, not unless we start seeing mass marches. Problem is, Scotland doesn't actually have that many people.

She must fucking hate Johnson though

Awesome, good for you.

Boris was loving that A rare zinger from Corbyn.

How is it even a betrayal? After the world cup is the best time for him to go, they have two years for someone else to come in and prepare for the Euros.

Savage.

Ok I'll give it a look but yeah, that seems a sensible position. So obviously, we're going to go for the non-sensible option as a society.

Well sure, but that's different to picking a side and then accepting you were wrong about it. I'm not saying you should do that by the way, I'm just noting that CT and myself have to effectively turn around and say that yeah, what we thought was best, was wrong. That's the thing people can't do.

I didn't - any chance of a basic summary of her position? I can't get iPlayer thanks to TV licensing

I'm struggling to see how it isn't hate speech. Is it? Or do we just accept that hate speech can only work from the 'powerful' to the 'oppressed'. I'm staggered that the Washington Post published it also - they're giving a platform to people who sound like Tommy Robinson, but with a different target.

Surprising defence of Trump by Monbiot: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/trump-nafta-g7-sunset-clause-trade-agreement The only point I would pick a hole in for his article is that I doubt whether Trump wanted a sunset clause in NAFTA for the reasons Monbiot is ascribing to him. But in fairness, the effect is the same I guess.

I'm not sure you've read it right... I'm not saying that I think this, I'm saying that clearly, SOME people think this. And that those people will struggle to think this once this Korean nonsense is exposed.

This is the thing that I find depressing with politics in this country. The Tories have been in power for long enough now that you couldn't really argue that the current 'plight' of the nation is anyone else's fault. And yet the day we will never see people like CT call the government out over its failings because no one in the UK has enough balls to admit they were wrong about anything. I once thought that Corbyn would make a good leader of the Labour party on the grounds that he was listening to people and wasn't a cardboard cutout of a human being like many of the Blairites. I have since decided that while the latter point is true, I was sadly wrong about the former - he is ineffectual domestically and actively damaging on Europe. While I still have some hope that he might be able to ride the wave again in another election, I'm no longer sure that I would actually want him in power if he's going to sleepwalk us out of the EU anyway. So there, CT - I was wrong about many of the things I hoped for with Corbyn. See? It didn't kill me. Not that he's the only one on here incapable of doing this, of course

If it is as it looks, surely no one can argue that Trump actually makes good deals. This has the potential to make him look exactly as out of his depth as he is.

Because meeting them validates the regime. http://time.com/5192579/trump-meets-kim-jong-un-north-korea/ It’s not that previous presidents didn’t have the option of meeting with the head of the hermit kingdom. “North Korea has been seeking a summit with an American president for more than twenty years,” Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at Middlebury Institute of International studies tweeted Thursday night. “It has literally been a top foreign policy goal of Pyongyang since Kim Jong Il invited Bill Clinton.”

I see your 'roads are sexist' article and raise you a hate speech article by the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.6cb44d600fa7 "Why can't we hate men?" The media is pathetic.

I dunno about that in entirety, the US has maintained a solid position on simply refusing to meet them. Its not all been from Kim. Trump has changed that position. Much of the criticism he is getting centres on the fact that his visit validates the regime. Obama, i think, would not have done this based on that principle alone.

How very true

Er, hold on. I backed Trump on this with the benefit of the doubt principally because I am not partisan on matters of international peace. I criticised him because if everything is as it seems, this deal achieves fuck all and appears to make a major concession that is not reciprocated. That is my only criticism of Trump and if Obama had struck this deal I would have said the same. I really hope Trump has brought about peace in the Koreas, but based on what we've seen so far, it looks unlikely. If he actually has, i would back him for a Nobel Peace prize. He would certainly be more deserving than Obama.

I wasn't disagreeing tbh, I was genuinely curious. Totally agree with the point you're making.

I see. So all the political experts and commentators scratching their heads over this firm concession weighed up against zero firm concessions from the other side, simply don't have the vision that you do to be able to see this for what it is?

Do the Tories have anyone competent?

That is a disturbing mental image. Or it would be if I had the imagination to conjure it.

The trailer looks awesome. Is it like a futuristic GTA or is it more on the rails than that?

Aye, the scaling back of US military presence when put up against precisely zero firm guarantees, something that was lost on me when commenting earlier, is clearly what Kim gets out of this. He's played Trump like a fiddle. The problem is, Trump is going to see that this is how it looks to the rest of us, probably try to make it sound like Kim has actually agreed to far more than he has, and then turn around and say that the North Koreans failed to meet their obligations, resulting in us going right back to where we were.