Reposted by Neil BKatie Phang @katiephang.bsky.social · 7hThere are NEW updates in the case of the Cornell 7 as more details are revealed, including how the alleged victim stated “with 100% confidence [she] was raped”. So why did the local DA only present certain parts of her written statement? I've got the latest reporting: youtu.be/tcsZBeeJk9k?...youtu.beNew DETAILS In Cornell ASSAULT CASE Revealed In BOMBSHELL Transcript!!YouTube video by Katie Phang 12935361326
Reposted by Neil BAaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 10hKlobuchar on Schmitt: "He's not aware that there's also women's sports ... because they wanted to do this to distract everyone, I would say they got their comeuppance" 17161221339
Reposted by Neil BMourning NAVALNY😢 @jan-readsalot.bsky.social · 30/09/2026I can’t wait for this day. 314153073500
Reposted by Neil BAllison Gill @muellershewrote.com · 30/09/2026100% should follow him around for the rest of what’s left of his political career. His 2028 VP hopes were dashed in two minutes and I love that for him. 60383691762
Reposted by Neil Bdharmalee3❌👑 @dharmalee3.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Trump said his GOP convention beat the NFL. Nielsen says the Seahawks-Patriots opener drew 25.1 million viewers. Trump’s speech drew about 3.3 million across three networks. Claiming victory after losing by roughly 21.8 million people takes a special kind of self delusion. 3332738746
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 18hI would say an imperative, not an option. Brexit has caused measurable harm. 040
Reposted by Neil BAaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 29/09/2026Jack Smith: "Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation ... rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 election, he engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power" 339123154556
Reposted by Neil BDeborah Lynn @mrsdeborahlynn.bsky.social · 29/09/2026www.reuters.com/world/us/for... "I will not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the president or others," Smith told the Senate Judiciary Committee, his second public hearing before Congress.reuters.comFormer Trump prosecutor Jack Smith tells Senate he won't be 'silenced' by prosecution threatsFormer US special counsel Jack Smith told senators on Tuesday he will not be silenced by threats of prosecution, as he faced Republican accusations of abuse of power in his investigations of Presiden... 23217
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Perhaps those states need extra convincing not to vote Republican? 020
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That rather completes the pattern: when the argument runs out, switch to sarcasm, motive and “victory” language. I never claimed victory; I asked you to address the position I actually took. You chose not to. I’m happy to leave the thread exactly where it is. 000
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Yes, I’ve said both. Neither means “don’t ask voters” or “hide the euro”. No legal requirement for a referendum ≠ opposition to one; no fixed euro timetable ≠ concealing adoption. You’re taking factual distinctions I made and inventing motives from them. 000
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That rather proves the point. Instead of identifying what is wrong with my argument, you finish with an insinuation about what I “think”. I’ve stated my position repeatedly and corrected the positions invented for me. The thread is there to read. I’m content to leave it there. 000
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That last line rather confirms where this has ended: insinuation instead of argument. I’ve repeatedly corrected positions you attributed to me that I never held. My actual point remains unchanged and is there in black and white. I’m content to let readers judge the thread for themselves. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026No. I’ve explicitly argued for public consent and for being honest about the euro obligation. Claiming I want to bypass voters or hide the euro is simply false. You’re no longer rebutting my argument; you’re inventing one. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I’ve never claimed to represent the electorate, nor said this is simple. I’ve repeatedly acknowledged the complexity. You’ve again replaced my argument with one of your own making, then dismissed me for holding it. “Sigh” and a shrug don’t make that any less obvious. 000
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Quoting my words doesn’t prevent misrepresenting the argument if you keep adding positions I never took. I’ve stated my point consistently: build the political case and mandate for rejoining now, rather than defer that work for two more years. The thread and my words speak for themselves. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That still isn’t my argument. I’m not asking for a prediction of how or when rejoining happens. I’m saying that if rejoining is worth pursuing, the political case and public mandate for it should start being built now, not deferred until the next manifesto. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I think you're proving my point: you're not engaging with what I actually said. My opening was “two lost years; start now”. I've repeatedly distinguished closer alignment from building a mandate to rejoin. Repeating “the groundwork has begun” simply restates the disagreement. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026“Only” distinguishes political constraint from legal prohibition; it doesn’t make it trivial. Explain why policy changed, make the case and seek consent. After a Brexit campaign marked by misleading claims and electoral-law breaches, accountability should cut both ways. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I read them. “We should not wait two more years” meant start building the mandate now, not bypass it. You’ve repeatedly substituted “don’t ask voters”, which I never said. “Perhaps you don’t read your posts?” is passive-aggressive, not argument. I think we’ve reached the end of the debate. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I struggle to accept I live in a timeline when such things even need to be said. 010
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That is now my distinction. You began with “the mandate prevents it”; you now accept there is no legal bar, only a political one. Of course a change of course must be explained and consent built. That is precisely why I said: start making the case now, not in two years. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That is precisely backwards. I’ve repeatedly argued for building public consent and a mandate; you’ve turned that into “not wanting to ask people”. I’m arguing for making the case sooner, not bypassing voters. Please address what I’ve said, not motives you’ve invented. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026You've moved from “the mandate prevents it” to “an MP must explain changing course”. Of course they should explain it. Accountability isn't prohibition, and changing policy in changed circumstances isn't automatically lying. That's a very different argument from the one you started with. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Labour's manifesto is a political commitment, not a legal prohibition. It does not “prevent” a government changing course, nor require a GE or referendum before building support. Calling my argument simplistic while misstating the constraint is rather rich. 200
Reposted by Neil BRicky Davila @therickydavila.bsky.social · 29/09/2026This is what the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool looks like today after a $17M deliberate fuck up and the orange felon won’t stop until he destroys everything. Makes me sick to my stomach every day. 735102863396
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026“Simplistic” is a label, not a rebuttal. I’ve repeatedly acknowledged the complexity, mandate, accession terms and political risk. My argument is about timing: caution may explain delay, but it does not make two more years inevitable. That is a political choice. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Thus my initial point, we realise Brexit is appalling, but lack the courage to change it. Two lost years. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That’s a separate constitutional question. A referendum on the eventual deal may be politically desirable, but it isn’t legally required. My argument is about starting the political work now, not prescribing the final ratification mechanism years in advance. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026You're moving the argument. First the EU would require a timetable; now Burnham must invent one for voters. The treaty sets no fixed timetable. A government can simply say adoption follows the convergence criteria. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I've shown no reluctance to tell voters anything. I've said the opposite: be clear about the obligation, the criteria and the absence of a fixed timetable. “You don't want to tell voters” is another invented position. Please argue with what I've written, not motives you've assigned to me. 200
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I never said Starmer fell because he wasn't pro-Rejoin. That's another argument I didn't make. Nor does demographic drift create a mandate by itself. “Other priorities” may explain sequencing, but it doesn't answer my point: political groundwork for rejoining can begin alongside them. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026My point was simple: Brexit caused harm; two more years is too long; start moving now. The “structural question” is whether rejoining becomes an explicit political objective. Everything since has rebutted positions I never took. Address my argument, not one constructed for me. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026You keep rebutting positions I haven't taken: apply now, nothing's happened, old opt-outs return. My opening point was urgency. Starmer resigned after losing public and party support; that is precisely why waiting for politics to improve itself is no answer. Start building consent now. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026No. I said the structural question is being deferred, not that nothing has happened. Alignment work has begun; rejoining has not. Treating those as the same thing misses the point. “Both are wrong” is personal assertion, not argument. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026It helps by separating fact from speculation. The EU’s current rules require euro adoption once criteria are met, but set no fixed timetable; member states develop their own strategies. You may be right that the EU would seek one from the UK, but that would be a negotiating position, not the rule. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026You're collapsing preparation into application. I've argued for starting the political and strategic work now: build consent, define objectives, align policy, prepare options. I have not argued for applying without a mandate. Those are different stages. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I haven't suggested the power balance is unchanged or that our old terms return. Of course 27 states must agree. My point is simply that a weaker negotiating position makes the task harder; it doesn't make negotiation pointless or justify setting our ambition before talks even begin. 000
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I think you're arguing against a position I haven't taken. I've not said “apply tomorrow”. I've said start the political, strategic and public work now rather than defer it for two years. Formal accession negotiations are only one part of that process. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That's a different argument. Article 49 doesn't require a GE or referendum before applying; mandate is a political question. And building that mandate is part of starting now: make the case, test the terms, build consent. Waiting two years isn't the only route to legitimacy. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I'm not assuming old opt-outs return. I'm distinguishing a negotiating baseline from a predetermined outcome. Standard terms are the starting point; accession terms are negotiated. Exceptionalism is demanding special treatment, not arguing that Britain should negotiate as effectively as it can. 200
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026The treaty position is simpler: new members commit to adopting the euro, but there is no fixed timetable. Adoption depends on meeting convergence criteria, including ERM II. So “the EU will insist on a timetable” is possible politically, but it isn't the current rule. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I've never argued for ignoring public opinion or simply applying tomorrow. Building public understanding, testing the available terms and negotiating closer alignment are part of moving forward. My point remains: why defer that work for two years rather than begin it now? 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I haven't claimed the 4% returns overnight; the OBR figure is a long-term effect. Public misunderstanding is an argument for explaining the case properly, not delaying it. Again, you're answering claims I haven't made rather than my point: why wait two years to start? 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026That may describe some people, but it isn't my argument. I haven't claimed we'd regain old terms or that FoM is a concession. I've said long-term negotiations should start sooner. Answering a caricature of “Remainers” rather than what I wrote is another form of personalisation. 100
Neil B @firstclasspost.bsky.social · 29/09/2026My point was simply “do something sooner”. Instead I’ve had reasons not to act, followed by “naive” and “parallel universe”. The irony is that opposing right-wing tactics while adopting their personalisation simply hands them the argument as well as the veto. 100
