President Elect's 'top team'

[sploo]

You’re deliberately side stepping my point.
I’m not interested in ‘economic orthodoxy’.
I’m interested in the truth.
You cannot even quantify by how much the damage is so your point isn’t valid.
Any claims would be subjective given that with ever shifting global trends, you would need a crystal ball to make any predictions.

What we know is, we sre performing better than most major EU countries. Not one of your economists predicted that, so let’s pack it in with all this Brexit whinging and another lefty ‘trust the experts’ campaign.

It wasn’t a purely economic decision anyway. It was just as much based ln cultural and democratic concerns.

And no that is not an invitation for you to start trying to bombard me with remain propoganda talking points about EU democracy.

The "truth" is that it has had a negative impact to the UK economy, and there's plenty of data to support it. E.g. https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

It's also fairly irrelevant (in terms of the Brexit) whether or not other EU countries are doing well or badly; the evidence is there that we would have been doing better without Brexit. It's also a bizarre outlook to decide something is ok because others may be suffering more than us.

If I've still missed your point then you may need to spell it out.

 

[ey_tony]

LOL

I actually don't care much about the fact that tony has done that, it's a wee bit funny, although the humour is somewhat dulled by the realisation that there must have been a specific reason for him to do so.
I'm therefore laughing AT it, not with it.
<Chuckles>

I do it to garner an intended response as I find that socialists just can't avoid biting instead of viewing it for what it is...it's only an avatar and nothing to get excited about!

 

[sploo]

LOL, nope.


Claim: Starmer can’t stop lying. Citation, please. Or it didn't happen.
Claim: He can’t keep it in his pants. Citation, please. Or it didn't happen
Claim: And he’s incredibly thin skinned. Explain, please. I don't see it.
Claim: He takes gifts and donations. Correction - Starmer accepted gifts and noted them in the register of member's interests. Boris went out asking for gifts and upon receipt deliberately withheld the information, and even when questioned said that he "couldn't remember" or "had changed his phone and couldn't access old messages". There is a world of difference.


So on the strength of but a single claim, observable reality dictates that Starmer is not, in fact, a "carbon copy" of Boris.

Bad luck, old bean.
Doesn't matter how many times this lie is repeated - it doesn't make it true.

It's bizarre isn't it. It's like working your way backwards from "I don't like him" to "I'll make various claims without actually having supporting evidence".

Given the well known history of Johnson's behaviour (both personally and professionally) to even make a comparison between him and Starmer is simply bonkers. Unless Starmer has a wealth of skeletons in the closet, and certain members here have some really good sources that are not available to the rest of us. In which case they'll be quite welcome to tell us we were all wrong in the future.

 

[mudman]

this is not a Brexit thread.

Do you have any comment on Trumps top team or his latest policies

True but I was responding to the large number of things such as 'a dispassionate observation about the state of Brexit ', just to give a bit of balance. Funny how those with such dispassionate views shut things down when something that doesn't chime with their dispassionate views comes up.

Do you have any comment on Trumps top team or his latest policies

Not really. I think see how things pan out. I think the lefty doom-mongers here will see something bad in everything he does or says. They'll even try to smear him with smearing the seats. If pressed I think people will be surprised. Some of his policies will backfire, others will be a major success. What will happen is that the MSM and such as yourself will highlight every failure with an 'I told you so' and be totally dismissive of his successes.
Harping on and on about how bad he is and will be is going to change nothing. I'm eager to see what he does achieve and how quickly.

 

[ey_tony]

It's bizarre isn't it. It's like working your way backwards from "I don't like him" to "I'll make various claims without actually having supporting evidence".

Given the well known history of Johnson's behaviour (both personally and professionally) to even make a comparison between him and Starmer is simply bonkers. Unless Starmer has a wealth of skeletons in the closet, and certain members here have some really good sources that are not available to the rest of us. In which case they'll be quite welcome to tell us we were all wrong in the future.

As a politician Boris even though he told porkies, he was still head and shoulders above Starmer...it's not even fair to associate the two as Starmer is the ultimate duplicitous sociopath.

 

[danst96]

I’ve pitched up three times in the last day to add a point about Trumps top team’s policies and not bothered as the thread has descended into childish bickering and name calling.

It would be a merciful act if the moderators decided to kill the thread imo.

It amazes me how immature a lot of 40+ year old men are

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The "truth" is that it has had a negative impact to the UK economy, and there's plenty of data to support it. E.g. https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

It's also fairly irrelevant (in terms of the Brexit) whether or not other EU countries are doing well or badly; the evidence is there that we would have been doing better without Brexit. It's also a bizarre outlook to decide something is ok because others may be suffering more than us.

If I've still missed your point then you may need to spell it out.

Bizarre isn't it. It's like me saying I'd win a fight with *Trump's close protection detail* if I could use knuckledusters and my opponent was not allowed to move or hit back. (*keeping it on topic, lol.)

The real question is which one of me would win a fight against *myself*, if one of my selves used knuckledusters and the other one of my selves was not allowed to move or hit back.


Clearly, me with knuckledusters would beat me if I couldn't move or hit back.

Similarly, the UK "in the EU" is £100billion a year better off than the UK "not in the EU".

(and actually, the other EU countries would probably benefit significantly too! It's a win-win for everyone. Except maybe racists?)

 

[sploo]

As a politician Boris even though he told porkies, he was still head and shoulders above Starmer...it's not even fair to associate the two as Starmer is the ultimate duplicitous sociopath.

Staggering disconnection from reality, but unsurprising.

Remind me when Starmer tried to arrange to get someone physically assaulted? Or when he lost three different jobs for lying?

For added comedy; Wikipedia lists Starmer as having 2 children. There isn't a figure for Johnson (on the top sidebar) because... well... he probably doesn't know either.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

As a politician Boris even though he told porkies, he was still head and shoulders above Starmer...it's not even fair to associate the two as Starmer is the ultimate duplicitous sociopath.

Would you do yourself a favour and provide some credible evidence to support any of that?
Saying "Starmer is a duplicitous sociopath", as if it is a fact, probably requires certain amount of burden of proof - and I don't think you've got the hang of that yet?

 

[RobinBHM]

There isn't a figure for Johnson (on the top sidebar) because... well... he probably doesn't know either.

and his name isnt even Boris

 

[ey_tony]

Staggering disconnection from reality, but unsurprising.

Remind me when Starmer tried to arrange to get someone physically assaulted? Or when he lost three different jobs for lying?

For added comedy; Wikipedia lists Starmer as having 2 children. There isn't a figure for Johnson (on the top sidebar) because... well... he probably doesn't know either.

I wouldn't buy a used car from either of them but to infer that Boris is inferior to Starmer is quite frankly extracting the urine.
Can you imagine what would have happened if this bunch of clowns had been in charge when Covid was unleashed?
They've already started to trash the economy and they've only been in since July. How bad do they have to be before you acknowledge that they are a bunch of clueless left wing losers?

That's not just my opinion...go out and do a vox pop and see what the public think of Starmer and Labour today and you may get a shock.

 

[ey_tony]

and his name isnt even Boris

I'm still waiting to see how you personally would approach dealing with the wealth inequality that you brought up! You're remarkably silent on that one.

 

[sploo]

Can you imagine what would have happened if this bunch of clowns had been in charge when Covid was unleashed?

I expect he would have turned up to Cobra meetings, unlike Boris (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nson-cobra-meetings-uk-response-a9472631.html), or maybe not funnelled quite as much public money into their mates' pockets for dodgy PPE (https://transparency.org.uk/report-...tion-red-flags-153-billion-uk-covid-contracts). But again, basing opinions on factual reality isn't your strong point is it Tony.

 

[Delaney]

LOL, nope.


Claim: Starmer can’t stop lying. Citation, please. Or it didn't happen.
Claim: He can’t keep it in his pants. Citation, please. Or it didn't happen
Claim: And he’s incredibly thin skinned. Explain, please. I don't see it.
Claim: He takes gifts and donations. Correction - Starmer accepted gifts and noted them in the register of member's interests. Boris went out asking for gifts and upon receipt deliberately withheld the information, and even when questioned said that he "couldn't remember" or "had changed his phone and couldn't access old messages". There is a world of difference.


So on the strength of but a single claim, observable reality dictates that Starmer is not, in fact, a "carbon copy" of Boris.

Bad luck, old bean.
Doesn't matter how many times this lie is repeated - it doesn't make it true.

If I got you the citations you required, you would simply move the goal posts.
The great thing about debating online over the last few years is that you get wise to the typical tricks

I expect that you are in a vanishing minority, since I'm certain that most people have enough of an understanding to realise that it is Trump's actions that fall decidedly short of what we expect in a Leader of the Free World; and it is those actions that we rail against:

Convicted Multiple Felon;
Adjudicated Rapist;
Self Confessed serial sexual assault and misogynist.
Unlawfully paid a sex worker out of political party funds.
Funded abortions.
Incited riots in the White House.

Can I ask you, tony, who is your second-favourite rapist?


Understand this, tony: This is not hatred of Trump. It is disgust of his actions. It is disgust that others think his actions are acceptable.
Of the man himself? I don't know him and therefore don't really possess a credible view.

Understand this, also, tony. To keep claiming that people "hate Trump", when in fact they are providing credible and substantiated commentary as to why Trump's actions are reprehensible, that claim of "Trump haters" is just a downright and deliberate lie. Hopefully you understand this more fully now, take it on board, and don't make the same mistake in future.

You keep saying that you are a man of facts but you consistently base your theories on your political bias.

You just called Tony a vanishing minority, literally after the only metric you have to support that, is the recent election whereupon Trump won the popular vote, the electoral college, the house and the senate.

Are you in possession of some other data, that would render this real fact, untrue?

 

[sploo]

If I got you the citations you required, you would simply move the goal posts.
The great thing about debating online over the last few years is that you get wise to the typical tricks

The "typical tricks" of someone (in this case HC)... is simply asking you to substantiate strong claims that you've made.

My take home from this is that you'd be OK if someone made strong (negative) claims about you, and then refused to provide any evidence - citing that you were simply trying to move the goalposts?

 

[Delaney]

Now up to 75: 75 Brexit Benefits - Mega Thread

I've not read all the new ones yet but #60 was an interesting one: https://x.com/TerraOrBust/status/1854302089280720971

Great thread! I got to about 20

I was convinced at 1.

 

[Jacob]

Well hamstringing the business owners with extra taxes who raise most of the wealth of the nation in the private sector is hardly going to solve the issue.
For starters it's more likely to reduce employment rather give the incentive for businesses to grow.
...and then there is the lovely Angela's 'employment rights' bill which has been shot down by the investigative committee and described as not fit for purpose.

Tell me what incentives were included in the recent budget which would help grow the economy as he was always promising?

How would you finance public services?

 

[sploo]

You keep saying that you are a man of facts but you consistently base your theories on your political bias.

Which part of the list of Trump's recorded actions that HC posted were just political bias?

 

[sploo]

Great thread! I got to about 20

I was convinced at 1.

Just opened that list; and straight in (#1) is a complete misunderstanding of EU membership. The UK benefitted more in trade from our membership than the cost of our contributions.

Having quickly scrolled through a few others, it mostly seems to contain the usual long debunked nonsense (such as the misleading claims about sanitary products).

 

[Delaney]

The "typical tricks" of someone (in this case HC)... is simply asking you to substantiate strong claims that you've made.

My take home from this is that you'd be OK if someone made strong (negative) claims about you, and then refused to provide any evidence - citing that you were simply trying to move the goalposts?

Here is how you know this would be a waste of time.

1) Normal people know that Starmer is a compulsive liar. So anyone challenging that, is either someone who knows nothing about him, or someone who is not a ‘good faith’ interlocutor.

2) It is clear that Hypnotic does know who Starmer is, so he is likely then not a good faith actor (hence experience online teaches you who plays tricks and who doesn’t).

3) The typical trick used by a bad faith actor in a debate is to require evidence to a fact. Once you go through the hassle of doing so, Instead lf saying “ah yes it seems you were right”, they wil instead say something like “ahh well that is only one example, I bet you can’t find another one”? If you then find another one, they will deflect and bring in another topic of debate, to try and move off it. Robin did this earlier when I confronted him over the Trump Nappy accusations. I let him off to allow him to save face (just as I’m doing here with Hypnotic)

4) On receiving evidence, instead of disputing the amount not being worthy enough, the quality of the evidence will be brought into question “oh you got that from the Telegraph, or that youtube channel is bias (even though it is video evidence of a lie).

5) Deny that the lie is a lie, even though it is.

6) Straight to deflection.

Do we really have to go through all that?