lukens
@lukens.io
“reach different conclusions”?
Do you seriously believe the Trump administration “reached the conclusion” that Alex Pretti was posing any kind of immediate threat to ICE agents?
They are lying to protect their actions and further their narrative. Anyone who can’t see this is stupid, or also lying.
Do you seriously believe the Trump administration “reached the conclusion” that Alex Pretti was posing any kind of immediate threat to ICE agents?
They are lying to protect their actions and further their narrative. Anyone who can’t see this is stupid, or also lying.
January 25, 2026 at 2:46 PM
“reach different conclusions”?
Do you seriously believe the Trump administration “reached the conclusion” that Alex Pretti was posing any kind of immediate threat to ICE agents?
They are lying to protect their actions and further their narrative. Anyone who can’t see this is stupid, or also lying.
Do you seriously believe the Trump administration “reached the conclusion” that Alex Pretti was posing any kind of immediate threat to ICE agents?
They are lying to protect their actions and further their narrative. Anyone who can’t see this is stupid, or also lying.
Typo there, I think “non metropolitan England” was supposed to be “morons who believe whatever rightwing tabloids tell them”
Labour need to stop trying to win over idiots who’ll never vote for them. This is literally their biggest mistake, as it loses them voters and gives legitimacy to Reform.
Labour need to stop trying to win over idiots who’ll never vote for them. This is literally their biggest mistake, as it loses them voters and gives legitimacy to Reform.
January 25, 2026 at 2:00 PM
Typo there, I think “non metropolitan England” was supposed to be “morons who believe whatever rightwing tabloids tell them”
Labour need to stop trying to win over idiots who’ll never vote for them. This is literally their biggest mistake, as it loses them voters and gives legitimacy to Reform.
Labour need to stop trying to win over idiots who’ll never vote for them. This is literally their biggest mistake, as it loses them voters and gives legitimacy to Reform.
Everywhere I’ve seen has reported it’s down to Labour rules due to him being mayor, for example:
“Labour Party rules give the NEC a veto over regional mayors contesting parliamentary elections under a change introduced after the last election, designed to prevent costly mayoral by-elections.”
“Labour Party rules give the NEC a veto over regional mayors contesting parliamentary elections under a change introduced after the last election, designed to prevent costly mayoral by-elections.”
January 25, 2026 at 1:09 PM
Everywhere I’ve seen has reported it’s down to Labour rules due to him being mayor, for example:
“Labour Party rules give the NEC a veto over regional mayors contesting parliamentary elections under a change introduced after the last election, designed to prevent costly mayoral by-elections.”
“Labour Party rules give the NEC a veto over regional mayors contesting parliamentary elections under a change introduced after the last election, designed to prevent costly mayoral by-elections.”
How come Khan can? Wouldn’t the NEC need to approve him too?
January 25, 2026 at 1:00 PM
How come Khan can? Wouldn’t the NEC need to approve him too?
I struggle to see Labour recovering ahead of the next election without Burnham. I can’t see it happening with Starmer.
To put the preservation of the Starmer project ahead of electability says to me they don’t care about winning the next election. If they don’t care, why should anyone else?
To put the preservation of the Starmer project ahead of electability says to me they don’t care about winning the next election. If they don’t care, why should anyone else?
January 25, 2026 at 12:41 PM
I struggle to see Labour recovering ahead of the next election without Burnham. I can’t see it happening with Starmer.
To put the preservation of the Starmer project ahead of electability says to me they don’t care about winning the next election. If they don’t care, why should anyone else?
To put the preservation of the Starmer project ahead of electability says to me they don’t care about winning the next election. If they don’t care, why should anyone else?
Lammy warning about rocking the boat or destabilising the ship? Open your eyes, mate, the ship is almost on the bottom of the ocean at this point. Your party is rarely polling above 20%, was at 14% in the most recent poll, is frequently 3rd behind the Tories and sometimes 4th behind the Greens too.
January 24, 2026 at 9:08 AM
Lammy warning about rocking the boat or destabilising the ship? Open your eyes, mate, the ship is almost on the bottom of the ocean at this point. Your party is rarely polling above 20%, was at 14% in the most recent poll, is frequently 3rd behind the Tories and sometimes 4th behind the Greens too.
Because when he sees the name “Brian Cox” it’s natural for him to think first of the Brian Cox he knows.
He didn’t mean the picture of Brian Eno.
He didn’t mean the picture of Brian Eno.
January 22, 2026 at 3:37 PM
Because when he sees the name “Brian Cox” it’s natural for him to think first of the Brian Cox he knows.
He didn’t mean the picture of Brian Eno.
He didn’t mean the picture of Brian Eno.
Do I need to have watched the original Bad Guys? (Or should I anyway?)
January 22, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Do I need to have watched the original Bad Guys? (Or should I anyway?)
I’ve not seen it, but as a listener to @kermodeandmayo.bsky.social I was amazed by how astonishingly long it was in the box office top 10 for, and felt they never really gave due credit for that accomplishment.
January 22, 2026 at 2:36 PM
I’ve not seen it, but as a listener to @kermodeandmayo.bsky.social I was amazed by how astonishingly long it was in the box office top 10 for, and felt they never really gave due credit for that accomplishment.
Whenever Trump mentions “peace”:
January 22, 2026 at 10:22 AM
Whenever Trump mentions “peace”:
[Rapturous applause], then Little Alex Horne says “there is one more clip we should watch”, and it cuts to a video with Starmer’s voice reading out “you are not allowed to physically remove your spine”, with added echo, over a video of him unzipping his skin down his back and taking out his spine.
January 22, 2026 at 10:10 AM
[Rapturous applause], then Little Alex Horne says “there is one more clip we should watch”, and it cuts to a video with Starmer’s voice reading out “you are not allowed to physically remove your spine”, with added echo, over a video of him unzipping his skin down his back and taking out his spine.
I’m sure that is delicious, but I can’t be the only cat owner who would really struggle to eat something that colour.
January 22, 2026 at 9:31 AM
I’m sure that is delicious, but I can’t be the only cat owner who would really struggle to eat something that colour.
Narrator: despite that, everyone still expected him to yield.
January 21, 2026 at 1:16 PM
Narrator: despite that, everyone still expected him to yield.
18 hours sounds the opposite of “tiny sleep”
January 21, 2026 at 8:24 AM
18 hours sounds the opposite of “tiny sleep”
Reposted by lukens
"l no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace"
January 19, 2026 at 7:17 PM
"l no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace"
Also, I once tried to think what the most inappropriate answer was to one of these kinds of questions, and the answer I landed on works for most of them, including this one.
It’s a 1987 film with Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, and Ted Danson.
It’s a 1987 film with Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, and Ted Danson.
January 18, 2026 at 11:34 PM
Also, I once tried to think what the most inappropriate answer was to one of these kinds of questions, and the answer I landed on works for most of them, including this one.
It’s a 1987 film with Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, and Ted Danson.
It’s a 1987 film with Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, and Ted Danson.