comment: >
  
  Toast!
context: Yep. That's what we're dealing with. >
  
  Part and parcel >
  
  Yes, I sell cardboard boxes for people to sleep in. >
  
  "Ah so you're in real estate." >
  
  "We will cut all homeless people in half" >
  
  lmao >
  
  “What’s it like having only 2 homes, you poor wretched creature? If you have a summer home where do you winter?” 
  Tories should stick to being evil, because when they pretend not to be it’s even worse. >
  
  "Do you consume supplements?"
  Will we imbeciles ever stop electing leaders which are completely disconnected from reality? >
  
  We didn't elect him. The tory membership did.
  But the door was opened to this when so many working class people switched to voting Conservative so we could "take our country back". >
  
  No they didn't! Tory membership elected a woman who couldn't out last a lettuce. Seemingly because she's white and he's not. 
  Tory MPs elected him. >
  
  It was the MPs only this time? I never knew that. Makes it worse, to be honest. Instead of thousands of people (all Tory members) choosing who they think would be best to run the country, it's a smaller pool of people being asked to choose their own boss. >
  
  Not quite, Johnson stood aside and Mordaunt didn't get enough support from MPs to make it onto the ballot. It was the same process which was used to narrow the August/ September election down to Truss and Sunak, however only Sunak had enough supporters to make it onto the ballot so there was no second election.
  I would have preferred it if the conservative party had collapsed completely. >
  
  It was NOT the same process! That is a complete falsehood. It was a 2-turn elimination where only the candidates with more than 100 mp supporting them could go to the 2nd turn, and where if more than 2 candidates had 100+ support only the top 2 would be selected.
  Also, if only 1 candidate had 100+ support, they’d be automatically elected WITHOUT a membership vote.
  It bore no resemblance with the usual process, beside the fact that it was used with the goal of electing a PM from conservative MPs.
  (For reference, the usual process was a multi-turn election with a min 20 mp support to be on the first turn ballot, with the candidate having the fewest votes each turn being eliminated, and the remaining 2 candidates after multiple turns pitted against each other in a membership vote.) >
  
  Ah, my error. I had forgotten that they had altered the process to avoid letting the swivel eyed idiots in the party's membership choose the PM given that they can't be trusted to choose the flavour of a pack of donuts, let alone a PM. >
  
  Thanks for being understanding! And yep they absolutely rigged the whole thing lol, 100% did this to prevent any chance that the membership would come anywhere close to anything resembling a choice, and make Rishi the PM. 
  Which, frankly, wasn’t a terrible idea, otherwise there’d probably be Boris in n10 right now… >
  
  "I mean it's one banana, Micheal. What could it cost? Ten Dollars? Vibes going on here. >
  
  I think he also quickly realises that when he asks this man if he 'works for a business' and he says yes, he has basically confirmed that you can have a job and still be homeless, and he doesn't want to have that conversation.
  That on top of the fact that he misspoke first and asked if Dean 'was in business'. Power of habit I suppose 🤦‍♂️ >
  
  I don’t know about the UK, but some studies in America show that ~40% of the homeless population is employed, so yeah. Dude could work in business and still be destitute. >
  
  A lot of the homeless aren’t homeless in the sense that media traditionally depicts homelessness to be like.  Most are clean-shaven, sober ppl with clean clothes who have steady jobs and a steady income, and who actively look to improve their lives instead of wallowing in filth with a sign all day (as media would depict it).  No-one wants to acknowledge that tho, bc it suggests that smth drastic needs to change if ppl who are trying and who are succeeding in their careers are also struggling to live a fulfilling life >
  
  It’s the Just World Fallacy. People have the false belief that individuals who are suffering must have done something to deserve it, and people who are successful must have earned it.
  In reality bad things happen to people regardless of their character, and “successful” people can achieve that success through unethical means. >
  
  "I like finance - it's good for the city and when finance does well, we all do well don't we?"
  poor guy believes in trickle down theory >
  
  He's a billionaire he knows it trickles up >
  
  The homeless guy said that, not the other guy >
  
  Well he is British that could be meant sarcastically. >
  
  Not a fucking clue, eh? >
  
  Yes I can hear you clem fandango