placeholder

Typical right wing double standard. Obama inherited the worst world financial crisis since the Great Depression, economic consequences are his fault. Trump gets slammed with the Covid epidemic, economic consequences not his fault. Biden inherits Covid epidemic, economic consequences his fault. Unemployment low during Biden administration, doesn't count.

I asked what's the solution. You haven't offered one.

No, it's not absolutely necessary. But how much of what people consume is actually necessary?

Here's another non threatening comment from Trump: "Former President Trump is coming under intense criticism for a social media post late Sunday in which he threatened to investigate Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal, NBC News and MSNBC, over the outlet’s coverage of him should he be elected president again. “They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social website. " https://thehill.com/homenews/4222082-trump-blasted-threats-against-comcast-nbc/

Democrats, Big Pharma and Black Rock are allied with the Democrats? Another member living in an alternative reality. House Republicans rip prospect of Medicare drug price negotiations https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/house-republicans-rip-prospect-of-medicare-drug-price-negotiations Drugmakers, trade groups push back against Medicare drug price negotiations https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/29/drugmakers-trade-groups-push-back-against-medicare-drug-price-negotiations-00111936 Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman will back Trump https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/24/blackstone-ceo-steve-schwarzman-will-back-trump-00159967

I doubt that thousands are being locked up on account of delinquent TV license fees. I found this article, which, while certainly condemning the criminalization of delinquent license fees, did not mention any case where someone was locked up. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/29/tv-licence-fee-scandal-1000-people-week-casually-criminalised That said, there are certainly categories like drug offenses, which ought to be decriminalized, or, at worst, have sentences sharply reduced.

In other words, you've got nothing.

Even if all the savings from cancelling all foreign aid was to be realized, a politically sure way to reduce even further the UK's influence and access to world trade, might there not be other sectors competing for those funds?

No. I'm citing the report. And the report does note that the EU is using conditionality, to enforce deportation. This means that aid is being withheld from some countries if they refuse to accept deportees from EU nations. Of course the EU nations have a lot more clout in this regard than does the UK.

Can you share with me your financial analysis that shows how much the savings would be? Amongst other things, I'm not sure that building prisons is a way to save money but I'm sure you will provide evidence to explain how that works.

‘Recalcitrant’ and ‘Uncooperative’: Why Some Countries Refuse to Accept Return of Their Deportees https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/recalcitrant-uncooperative-countries-refuse-deportation

Is this some kind of time travel thing? Where the future actually causes the past? Do you believe that there wasn't a problem with overcrowding and early release before?

If it was just about exporting them, you'd have point. But there another half to this problem which you are ignoring.

They're rehearsing in case the upcoming election doesn't go their way.

It may be obvious to you, but what's the solution? Apart from building more prisons? Is the UK locking up too many people in the first place? Are sentences too long? I don't know the answer to these questions. Do you have any genuine information you could provide that might answer these questions?

As much as I might wish the debate would be decisive, I doubt it.

Was it a stupid idea when the Conservates were in power?

Did Harris offer anything like Trump's loony claim that Democrats support abortion after birth?

I see you're ignoring the fact that that Trump fanboys predicted that Trump was going to destroy Harris in the debate. Did that happen? As for your characterization of the debate, considering the absolute craziness of Trump as instanced by his claim that babies were being killed after they were born, I'd say it's pretty clear he lost the debate. And if you don't believe me, how about what these Marxists are saying as reported by this Communist media source: House Republicans lament Trump's 'terrible' debate performance: 'Let her get under his skin' House Republicans are privately expressing frustration about former President Trump’s performance in his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday. Several House GOP lawmakers granted anonymity to speak freely acknowledged Trump "missed" opportunities to effectively attack Harris and tout his own record. A few said it was the prevailing sentiment within the House Republican Conference that Harris successfully baited him on multiple occasions — though most argued it would ultimately have little impact on Election Day https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-lament-trumps-terrible-debate-performance-let-her-get-under-his-skin

Even if your characterization was accurate, which it isn't, I recall before the debate the Trump fanboys claiming that he was going to steamroll Harris. That she was a lightweight and didn't stand a chance.

I guess I'm going to have to zero in even more on what you wrote: "That's really what Churchill wanted. " How is one supposed to construe that comment except to mean that preserving the Empire was his primary concern? And what evidence do you have for that? I mean, apart from your mind reading. As Martin Gilbert pointed out, Churchill stood out before the war during the 30's as someone who bitterly opposed Nazi racialism and understood the threat it posed.

Here's what you wrote: Indeed, it would have been a Nazi led Europe, but Britain would have retained her empire, and that would have been her only option to retain her empire. That's really what Churchill wanted. In Churchill's mind, were the two mutually exclusive? That he preferred one outcome over the other? You know this how?

We have a long written and spoken record of what Churchill wanted., Against that, we have, in you, an apparent mind reader. And not just an ordinary one, but a mind reader who read the minds of a person long dead.

Here's a funny anecdote about Churchill related by Orson Welles to Dick Cavet. It goes a long way towards explaining why Churchill had so many friends.

Really? Because the bigotry of the Nazis towards the Jews wasn't flagrantly apparent? Churchill was in Germany in 1932 doing some research on an ancestor of his. Someone offered to arrange for Churchill to meet Hitler. Churchill mentioned a few questions to ask Hitler in advance to prep for their meeting. I'll let Martin Gilbert take it from here... "Among them was the following question: “What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth? How can any man help how he is born?” This may seem a simple sentiment to us now, but how many people, distinguished people from Britain, the United States and other countries, who met or might have met Hitler, raised that question with him? So surprised, and possibly angered, was Hitler by this question that he declined to come to the hotel and see Churchill. FROM the moment that Hitler came to power, Churchill in his public speeches, and in his Parliamentary speeches, made it clear that the racial aspect of Nazism was a central concern. He always insisted on raising this issue, and pointing out the relevance to his listeners of the Nazi racial policies, and this he did again and again." https://winstonchurchill.org/the-life-of-churchill/war-leader/churchill-and-the-holocaust-the-possible-and-impossible/