|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 12, 2024 20:36:28 GMT
What is the truth though Andrew? Whatever the ins and outs of this can you recall a prime minister fall so far in such a short space of time,do you believe that all the critics are far right ranters with no concept of why they feel the way they do about the situation or do you believe they lack the intellect to understand? That the criticisms come from various points of the political spectrum and from more than the followers of any single party should answer that question shouldn’t it? The point is though, as Ripley pointed out, that the tariffs issue predates Labour and this would apply regardless of the UK election. I'm actually surprised at your post here, must admit.Don’t know why as I widened it beyond that and made it clear I had too. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 12, 2024 20:37:28 GMT
I don't know which is why I asked for the information. It seems you don't know either. Who sent you here c2? Monte, Steve, or some other lefty loon pillock... Typical uncalled for Rightist denigration ^^. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Nov 12, 2024 20:38:10 GMT
What is the truth though Andrew? Whatever the ins and outs of this can you recall a prime minister fall so far in such a short space of time,do you believe that all the critics are far right ranters with no concept of why they feel the way they do about the situation or do you believe they lack the intellect to understand? That the criticisms come from various points of the political spectrum and from more than the followers of any single party should answer that question shouldn’t it? The point is though, as Ripley pointed out, that the tariffs issue predates Labour and this would apply regardless of the UK election. I'm actually surprised at your post here, must admit. Thank you. Whatever you think of Starmer, the tariffs are not and cannot be his fault. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 12, 2024 20:44:47 GMT
Since they were Labour party activists and Starmer is in charge of the Labour party I would have thought it was moderately obvious... When it first came to light Red I thought steamer had sent about half a dozen advisers and not a fucking army of 100.... Starmer even sent Downing Street Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, and all his expenses were picked up by the Labour party. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 12, 2024 20:45:17 GMT
I don't know which is why I asked for the information. It seems you don't know either. Since they were Labour party activists and Starmer is in charge of the Labour party I would have thought it was moderately obvious... That is an assumption which might be correct, but given the boundless ability of Rightist dishonest denigration, I would like to see the full picture which would include the evidence. Insinuations, denigration and misleading assumptions are all part of the well practiced 'Dark Legend' approach of Conservative false propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 12, 2024 20:46:42 GMT
When it first came to light Red I thought steamer had sent about half a dozen advisers and not a fucking army of 100.... Starmer even sent Downing Street Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, and all his expenses were picked up by the Labour party. If true, you are naming one person only. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 12, 2024 20:49:40 GMT
I think the reality is a 180 degree swivel from your viewpoint. I've posted already in the thread that dealt with these 100 foot soldiers the reality of the legality. In short, in exactly the same way as it is a crime for a British subject to sign up as a mercenary in a military conflict between two countries neither of whom the United Kingdom is itself in a legally declared state of war with, it is a crime in US law for a nation state outside the united states to fund the actions of its own citizens in campaigning for one candidate against another in a US election. It doesn't matter what the fuck the laws are in the UK. The fact is a member of Starmer's GOVERNMENT machinery made a public statement that they were sending 100 people to the USA to aid the Democrat's POTUS Candidate's campaign for election. If every single penny of the costs involved with that can demonstrably be proven to US investigators with the power and authority of the IRS to have originated from the coffers of Democrat funding and the wallets of those 100 people then Trump's legal allegations that the United Kingdom GOVERNMENT broke US Electoral LAW will fail. If NOT then Trump has succeeded in proving the UK has unlawfully interfered in the US Election process and is in breach of US law in respect of acts committed by UK Citizens on US Soil I said at the time that Starmer's aide's claim was that she was acting in a capacity as a Labour Party official and that no element of government resource was used, and that the costs of sending these people were met entirely by them and by US Registered Voters. And I said she had better fucking pray she could PROVE that or her life was about to be quite unpleasant as she was almost certainly looking at the US going out to make her a criminal, at least in any place they have jurisdiction. I don't know how that will pan out. I'm sure Trump will try to make that stick. I can't say how it will pan out but unless she can prove the government made zero contribution to the cost, she's a felon in US eyes, this is no misdemeanor.... But putting that aside, the secondary issue is the fact that Trump DOES seem tariffs as a weapon of first resort against nation states whose actions he sees as hostile to him. It's pretty bloody obvious to any who have access to Temu, Alibaba, eBay and Amazon that China is waging economic war against the western world, using its sweatshop labour and shit show elfin safety contempt to destroy the jobs in the US and other western world countries. That's the game the Chinese are playing and the blue collar Trump voters are the intended target. Not collateral damage. Intended Target. Xi wants them dead, just as dead as the occupants in the blast range if the payload of the Enola Gay, and Trump knows it. And from my time in Alaska, so do the people Xi wants dead. To Trump, arresting Chinese undermining of jobs that could be done in the USA is THE number one priority. It will rack up the price of anything currently shipped in from China made for cents in that shit hole to dollars in the US but that price hike will come with the benefit of US jobs and income, and Chinese starvation in the gutter to rival that in North Korea, and that is a very, VERY GOOD thing. Using the same measures to kick political enemies in the nuts is second nature |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 12, 2024 20:50:19 GMT
The point is though, as Ripley pointed out, that the tariffs issue predates Labour and this would apply regardless of the UK election. I'm actually surprised at your post here, must admit. Thank you. Whatever you think of Starmer, the tariffs are not and cannot be his fault. Actually, just listened to an interesting theory.... Because Trump likes the UK and supports Brexit, he signs mutually favourable UK/US trade deals, and imposes 20% tariffs on the EU. This is good for UK/US relations but causes much tension between London and Brussels making things very awkward for pro EU Starmer. Interesting... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 12, 2024 20:51:25 GMT
When it first came to light Red I thought steamer had sent about half a dozen advisers and not a fucking army of 100.... Starmer even sent Downing Street Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, and all his expenses were picked up by the Labour party. Or lord alli.... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 12, 2024 20:53:15 GMT
Thank you. Whatever you think of Starmer, the tariffs are not and cannot be his fault. Actually, just listened to an interesting theory.... Because Trump likes the UK and supports Brexit, he signs mutually favourable UK/US trade deals, and imposes 20% tariffs on the EU. This is good for UK/US relations but causes much tension between London and Brussels making things very awkward for pro EU Starmer.Interesting... You got to hand it to the donald he sure knows how to use a large stick...LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Nov 12, 2024 20:54:03 GMT
The point is though, as Ripley pointed out, that the tariffs issue predates Labour and this would apply regardless of the UK election. I'm actually surprised at your post here, must admit. Thank you. Whatever you think of Starmer, the tariffs are not and cannot be his fault. Why not? Starmer surrounds himself with people who smeared Trump without any provocation with Nazism. Hypocritical grovelling doesn't change that fact. While we have Starmer and his horde of twisted unprofessional morons surrounding him the country will suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 12, 2024 20:54:29 GMT
Thank you. Whatever you think of Starmer, the tariffs are not and cannot be his fault. Actually, just listened to an interesting theory.... Because Trump likes the UK and supports Brexit, he signs mutually favourable UK/US trade deals, and imposes 20% tariffs on the EU. This is good for UK/US relations but causes much tension between London and Brussels making things very awkward for pro EU Starmer. Interesting... lol .👍 |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 12, 2024 21:10:47 GMT
Thank you. Whatever you think of Starmer, the tariffs are not and cannot be his fault. Actually, just listened to an interesting theory.... Because Trump likes the UK and supports Brexit, he signs mutually favourable UK/US trade deals, and imposes 20% tariffs on the EU. This is good for UK/US relations but causes much tension between London and Brussels making things very awkward for pro EU Starmer. Interesting... So if we get tariffs it's Starmer's fault. If we don't get tariffs it's Starmer's fault. I get it. 🙈🤔🙃 |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Nov 12, 2024 21:10:53 GMT
Thank you. Whatever you think of Starmer, the tariffs are not and cannot be his fault. Why not? Starmer surrounds himself with people who smeared Trump without any provocation with Nazism. Hypocritical grovelling doesn't change that fact. While we have Starmer and his horde of twisted unprofessional morons surrounding him the country will suffer. The tariffs are not and cannot be Starmer's fault for the very simple reason that Trump was planning and talking about them long before Starmer was even elected, as links I posted earlier show. Trump has even said, "we will tariff the hell out of China" and he has mused about tariffs on China from 60% to 100%. His current favorite number for other imports is 20%. To give you an idea of what that might mean for British imports, let's look at a nice English product, Duerr's Fine Cut Seville marmalade which sells on Amazon.UK for £5.25 for 3 jars and can be delivered free of charge for Amazon Prime customers. An American Prime member will pay $20.99 for those 3 jars of marmalade plus a further $20.99 for shipping from the UK, for a total of $41.98. When tariffs kick in, three jars of marmalade that cost £5.25 in the UK will cost an American customer an additional 20%, for a total of $46.17, which at today's exchange rate is £38.79. Why would Americans buy such a product from the UK when local marmalade can be bought for a quarter of that price? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 12, 2024 21:14:09 GMT
Actually, just listened to an interesting theory.... Because Trump likes the UK and supports Brexit, he signs mutually favourable UK/US trade deals, and imposes 20% tariffs on the EU. This is good for UK/US relations but causes much tension between London and Brussels making things very awkward for pro EU Starmer. Interesting... So if we get tariffs it's Starmer's fault. If we don't get tariffs it's Starmer's fault. I get it. 🙈🤔🙃 I don't think blame will be apportioned if Trump does not impose tariffs!  |
|
