placeholder

You raised the issue of what crimes Trump is accused of committing on Jan 6, I replied quite specifically about one. Apparently, you want to ignore that which is certainly your right.

Really? Am I about to be told why Trump's possession of government documents isn't a violation of the law because of the Presidential Records Act?

Also, I guess you didn't get it that Katyal is mocking Trump. Trump's response, while it's nuts, doesn't indicate the kind of insanity that will get him time in a psychiatric facility instead of a prison.

I don't know what you mean by "accused"? Do you mean indicted? He certainly has been accused of committing various crimes on that day. So far no indictments have been sought. And any charges would likely be more complicated to prove than his alleged violations of the Patriot Act where there's a huge amount of hard physical evidence against him. As for Jan 6, for one thing he's accused of knowingly violated the law by pressuring Mike Pence to violate the law by obstructing the electoral certification. Pence's top lawyer, Marc Jacobs, said John Eastman admitted in front of Trump that this plan to get Pence to reject the electoral votes violated the law.

Former DOJ official says Trump's reaction to the January 6 panel is starting to look like the makings of an insanity defense Former DOJ official Neal Katyal commented on Donald Trump's 14-page response to the DOJ. Katyal said he did not think the response would help Trump unless he was trying to plead insanity. He said Trump's response was "evidence" of an insanity plea. https://www.businessinsider.com/former-doj-official-trumps-response-jan-6-insanity-defense-2022-10 His response starts out like this: “This memo is being written to express our anger, disappointment, and complaint that with all of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on what many consider to be a Charade and Witch Hunt, and despite strong and powerful requests, you have not spent even a short moment on examining the massive Election Fraud that took place during the 2020 Presidential Election, and have targeted only those who were, as concerned American Citizens, protesting the Fraud itself,” https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3688097-trump-skirts-testimony-question-in-blistering-14-page-jan-6-response/

Because it's obviously a fact that they calling it but what is its significance? What is it evidence in support of? That some people want a new election? Is anyone denying that? What's your point?

Actually, I suggest you do a little rethinking. It's not about tax rates. It's about the percentage of deficit in relation to revenue. That has plunged in the US in 2022 to about 4.7%. What percentage were Truss' cuts going to create?

Tell me, was Biden alone in his opinion? Was he at odds with the world's major financial institutions? Seems to me that was a duo named Kwarteng and Truss? Or am i misremembering?

Well, Nicholas Eberstadt works for the American Enterprise Institute. As I recall, his thesis is that American men aren't looking for work because they are getting by with social benefits. So maybe that's why there are so many job openings. How many is many? What percentage of the work force? As for stocks. I took a look at the s&p 500. The latest number shows it wroughly were it was less than 2 years ago. So any body who's retiring should still be doing okay except maybe if they're in their early 20's and have a large amount invested in their 401K's. But, yes the world economy is fragile. Inflation is high. Due to covid aftermath and a war. But this is pretty much a worldwide phenomenon in the developed economies. Except in a socialist paradise like Japan where the govt highly subsidizes consumer goods and fuel costs. Oh to live in Japan! Still, the USA is doing better than most others.

Because she's not a citizen? Or you believe that undocumented aliens can run? Few things as sad as a failed joke.

Actually there is plenty of independently verifiable evidence to support or contradict most of the assertions you cited. I don't understand why you think someone calling for a new election is anything more or less than someone calling for an election. That doesn't belong in your list.

This seems to be a particularly unenlightening video. Basically, it's Abdel-Aziz of the UAE denying the factuality of a Reuters report. This looks like the raw material for a news report, but not a news report in itself. And it's good to keep in mind than when the UAE along with the Saudis cut relations with Qatar they cited alleged hostile quotes from the leader of Qatar. As US intelligence later reported, the UAE had actually hacked into Qatari govt sites and posted these fake quotes in order to provide a pretext for breaking off relations and militarily attackiing Qatar. UAE orchestrated hacking of Qatari government sites, sparking regional upheaval, according to U.S. intelligence officials The United Arab Emirates orchestrated the hacking of Qatari government news and social media sites in order to post incendiary false quotes attributed to Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, in late May that sparked the ongoing upheaval between Qatar and its neighbors, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Officials became aware last week that newly analyzed information gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed that on May 23, senior members of the UAE government discussed the plan aTnd its implementation. he officials said it remains unclear whether the UAE carried out the hacks itself or contracted to have them done. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/uae-hacked-qatari-government-sites-sparking-regional-upheaval-according-to-us-intelligence-officials/2017/07/16/00c46e54-698f-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html The US govt. had to intercede to avert a Saudi military assault on Qatar. "ll this worked well with the Trump administration’s initial diplomatic strategy for the regional conflict, which was to provide the feuding parties with a face-saving mechanism for de-escalation. During a June 6, 2017, call with Saudi King Salman, U.S. President Donald Trump firmly rejected a Saudi proposal to invade Qatar." https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/06/how-israel-emerged-as-an-unlikely-peacemaker-in-the-middle-east/

Well, for one thing, employment is still very strong. And so is the dollar. As for people losing trillions of dollars, which people? Most Americans have very little investment in the stock market. What's more, it's only a loss if you're cashing in your stocks. This won't be the first time stocks have declined sharply and it most likely won't be the last. So far consumer spending hasn't suffered which is contrary to the effect one would expect if stock prices really did play a critical role in the financial lives of most consumers.

Here's a link to 7 interviews with 7 men from the Russian Federation who are dodging the draft. Number 4 is from Dagestan and his interview jibes with with the report says. He says the Russians call them "blacks" and treat them exceptionally badly. Definitely worth reading all the interviews but his was especially interesting. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/14/russian-men-dodge-putin-draft-ukraine-00061579

Responding to deflections that invoke Labour is not the same thing as bring the subject up in the first place. What don't you get about that?

You clearly did miss the report that Trump was threatening to lead the demonstrators/rioters. "In the new footage, Pelosi is depicted watching crowds swell near the Capitol. At around noon that day, Trump had given a speech blasting attempts to certify Biden’s victory and declaring that he would march down to the area alongside his supporters." “Tell him if he comes here, we’re going to the White House,” Pelosi says, laughing. A senior Pelosi aide later tells the speaker, at about the time protesters were beginning to mass at the Capitol, that the Secret Service had rebuffed Trump’s demand to go to the Capitol. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/14/pelosi-punch-trump-footage-jan-6/

I don't think you understand how the US system of govt works. It's not the legislature that prosecutes criminals. It's the executive branch. The next Presidential election will be held in 2024. And at this point I have to believe that you are trolling since it's been explained to you over and over again that the justice dept has a policy that no indictments with a political dimension will be sought within 50 days of an election.

How about "You are clearly not aware that "In 2021, the UK's exports of goods and services totalled £636 billion and imports totalled £654 billion."? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02815/#:~:text=In 2021%2C the UK's exports,45% of imports in 2021.

Not so much when they're designed to deflect the conversation away from the issue. Especially when they're framed in an invidious way.

Well it is a misquote, and instead of truncating a quote, it's possible to actually refute it with your own words.

The people raising the issue are those looking to make a deflection and discredit Labour. Your contribution above is a case in point. Here it is again: "It would also be put at risk if a Labour government levied windfall taxes on the oil companies, caved in to the trade unions asking for huge pay rises and, therefore, couldn't handle inflation so in turn would raise benefits in line with inflation." Yes, it's a public forum, but as you may have noticed, from time to time the moderators intervene when they judge that a thread has gone off track. Whether they will in this case makes no difference to your contention that this forum, being public, allows for deflections.

What's actually sad is that some people believe that their necessarily limited personal perspective on a large complex problem has any dispositive value.

Actually Lacessit used the words "I am not aware." And it's a silly and stupid trick to use a truncated quote (or in your case misquote} as a rebuttal.

So you take a lack of comment from others as some kind of endorsement? Really? And just because you're not intentionally telling falsehoods, doesn't mean you're telling the truth. There's lots of psychological phenomena that account for that.

Even if that's the case, you think it's a significant distinction that they left because of the Brexit vote but not because of Brexit? That's like saying that people left their homes because of the hurricane warnings but not because of the hurricane. Whether or not that hurricane struck, you would say that it was immaterial to their leaving?