placeholder

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?

Whether they are Brexit supporters or allegedly neutral, I've noticed their heavy reliance on anecdotal evidence. I don't understand why they think that such unconfirmable assertions are a valid way to support a case.

I think this is the significant sentence in that article: "It became one of the many projects he's lent his name to and made money from, even without hands-on involvement." Back then Trump's endorsement was still on balance positive. Not so much anymore. Trump Product Endorsements Drive Consumers...Away https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-product-endorsements-drive-consumers-away-n744301

Not long ago he was a professional comedian. Maybe he's being competitive? After all, it's now Putin who's getting most of the laughs.

I'm puzzled by its decline against the dollar, too, That said, if a big worldwide recession is coming, then a commodities exporter like Australia can expect to suffer. But that possible future doesn't explain what's happened in the past. Still, over the past 5 years it's up against the euro, the pound, and the yen. But down against the yuan.

Well, your comment is certainly no less relevant than iamfalang's.

It's not enough to declare articles of faith. Provide some actual evidence that Labour has treated the NHS the way that the Tories have. Given the the NHS is one of the sources of electoral strength for Labour, your assertion makes no sense. But maybe it's enough to make it the basis of a minor religion.

And what does any of this hero-worship have to do with the ongoing financial disaster that is Truth Social?

"Remember 150,000,000 in America ALONE might have voted for him, with other fans worldwide." This is an amazing number when you consider that the total vote in the 2020 election was about 155.5 million. Does that mean that Biden only got about 5.5 million votes? This speaks to an astonishing level of election fraud not even posited by Trump. Well, at least not yet.

Well, I guess if you believe that the NHS would be in the same dire straits under Labour as it is under the Tories you have a point. But that seems very unlikely.

Your comment leaves you with none. But let me put it to you as a statement. The UK was not the only nation to experience economic distress from covid. To assist you in the understanding the point of this statement, here's a question: why is its performance since Brexitworse than that of other economically developed Nations?

Because it was only the UK that experienced economic distress due to covid?

No matter how hard you try, you're not going to succeed in making this mess about Labour. Give it up already.

Quite right. The original premise of this investigation was to expose the FBI conspiracy to get Trump. Instead, Durham is now portraying the FBI as dupes. That approach failed in the case of Sussman who was acquitted.

I don't understand. The judge's comments are about 3 years old.

Invoking recent events isn't necessary. Back then the judge castigated Barr for his dishonesty.

Clearly you're not aware that this reflects Barr's misrepresentation of the report for which he was castigated by the judge in the case for misrepresenting the facts. Federal judge slams AG Barr over Mueller report, vows to review unredacted version A federal judge has vowed to review an unredacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia investigation in order to determine if those redactions, ordered by Attorney General William Barr, were warranted and followed federal guidelines. U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton, who is presiding over a lawsuit brought forth by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) -- a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., focused on privacy and First Amendment issues -- in conjunction with BuzzFeed News, said that an independent review of the full, unredacted report is necessary because he has "grave concerns about the objectivity" of Barr's Justice Department in authorizing redactions in line with department rules and exemptions allowed under the Freedom of Information Act Walton -- who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush and was a former FISA court judge -- said in his ruling Thursday that Barr's "lack of candor" is evidenced by his decision to release a summary of the Mueller report effectively exonerating Trump from potential charges of obstruction without the report being made available to the public so they could draw their own conclusions. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-slams-ag-barr-over-mueller-report-vows-to-review-unredacted-version Federal Judge Slams Barr Over Mueller Report https://www.npr.org/2020/03/06/812989321/federal-judge-slams-barr-over-mueller-report Judge slams Barr, orders review of Mueller report deletions https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/judge-slams-bill-barr-122449

No, it's not a total mess and trying to paint it so is just a way of evading the fact that Trump did nothing about the rioters breaking into the Capitol even as he was watching it unfold. What's more he lied and claimed he wasn't watching it because he was in meetings. Why is that a total mess? It's perfectly clear.

Here are the links you requested. Living in a metaphorical cage much? You really don't know about the conclusion of Horowitz' report? Or the fact that Barr and Durham openly disagreed with it? FBI wiretap of Trump campaign aide was riddled with errors, but Russia probe was legally justified, IG report finds The voluminous report, released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, identified 17 separate inaccuracies across three surveillance applications, effectively inflating the justification for monitoring former foreign policy adviser Carter Page starting in the fall of 2016. Horowitz, however, concluded the FBI was legally justified in launching its inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. There was no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations," the report said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/ig-report-review-fbis-fisa-warrant-russia-probe-released/1499906001/ The article goes on to relay that the report goes on to say that the decision to open the investigation had nothing to do with the Steele report. Durham rejects ‘some conclusions’ of Horowitz report Washington – Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham on Monday said he disagreed with some of the conclusions of a Justice Department inspector general who determined the FBI had an “authorized purpose” and did not act out of political bias when it initiated its investigation into Trump campaign ties with Russia. Durham, who has been tasked by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to conduct his own investigation, is now the president’s best hope of proving the FBI and former special counsel Robert Mueller conducted “witch hunts” when they probed Russian meddling into the 2016 election.'' Durham said that, based on the evidence his team has “collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing,” he told Horowitz last month “that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” https://ctmirror.org/2019/12/09/durham-rejects-some-conclusions-of-horowitz-report/ Horowitz pushes back at Barr over basis for Trump-Russia probe The Justice Department inspector general testified: “We stand by our finding.” https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/horowitz-barr-trump-russia-probe-082448

Well, they already did it once under Reagan. And if they're not going to do it, why keep going on about it?

What does that have to do with Trump sitting on his hands as he raptly watched the events unfold on TV? Why would he have requested before the event that the National Guard be send to avert violence but when it actually broke out do nothing? Miller's explanation makes sense. I haven't even seen you offer an alternative one to reconcile these 2 facts. And there's this: Trump first falsely claimed that Pelosi rejected an offer of 10,000 National Guard troops nearly a year ago — and has repeated that in speeches. Trump did not make a request for National Guard troops to secure the Capitol that day, according to Pentagon spokesman John Kirby. “We have no record of such an order being given,” he told The Washington Post’s Fact Checker. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-lies-again-nancy-pelosi-031403003.html