The problem is, you have one side whos worried their candidate might be too old and another who doesn’t even care if their candidate raped a child and tried to overthrow their government.

However, for reasons no one can quite explain, only one of them is being called to drop out of the race.

Its a great iceberg but im not sure id name a town after it.

I seem to remember that the common concensus is that it would be easier to create a whole universe than the individual simulation model.

Na, his policies were nothing close to definitive on any positions. Honestly, that part of the left has been fighting the far right so long that they’ve lost track of where the lines are supposed to be and just lie as policy.

Well known by who? Where are these people? Are they in the room with us right now?

There isn’t anything to corroborate that he was ever either one of those, let alone switched. The people who didn’t want him to win the leadership simply declared it to be thus and such. Despite their claims, that not the same thing as it being true.

The “he switch after he won the leadership” is the part they made up. You have to realise that the label of neoliberal was given to him not only by his enemies within the party but by people who also don’t actually know anything at all about neoclassical economics and simply use the term as a slur to throw at anyone right of the socialist campaign group that they dont like. In fact, the term has all but lost its meaning due to them.

You’d have thought that there was something in-between being a socialist and a neoliberal but, Apparently, were to beleive thats not the case.

The problem is presuming someone needs incentive or malice to do that. The guy was soft-left and known to be so for years, right up until the very second he ran in the leadership election against corbyns heir Rebecca Long Bailey. At that exact moment, as if by magic, he became a neoliberal.

Its almost as if people made it up.

Its missleading to bass too much on that analysis. The parties don’t compete for the popular vote but to concentrate votes within seats they feel they can win.

No one was aiming to win the popular vote. I agree that’s a problem but we can’t really read to much into the split imo.

Mid twenties teenagers with 30 year old parents.

Would you still feel that way, about the very first part, if I was to remind you that some of the Russian oligarchs were crime bosses who took power and wealth by force?

Admittedly, it doesn’t have the hereditary rule part but that, for me, would simple fall under “the difference is the passage of time.” I see it much like the difference between a cult and a religion.

“Wage slave master”?

As a British person, I had a few awkward conversations with other British people when I’ve asked them to explain the difference between a royal or a higher level aristocrat and an oligarch.

It seems to be something to do with the length of time society had to endure their bastardry. Well, it’s either that or that they’re not from the Oligar region of Russia. Its one of the two.