UK's conservative government doing everything it can to crash the UK's and the world's economy (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

Holy hell Batman! Talk about screwing your own country over. Same thing would happen here if Republicans held both the congress and the presidency.

==============
LondonCNN Business —
The UK government’s decision to implement the biggest tax cuts in 50 years while borrowing tens of billions of dollars to subsidize soaring energy costs this winter is a massive gamble that’s sent shockwaves through financial markets.

Since Friday, when finance minister Kwasi Kwarteng formally announced the plans, the British pound has plunged 5% against the US dollar, bringing its total losses so far this year to an eye-popping 21%. The euro, for comparison, is down about 15% against the dollar during the same period.

The turmoil doesn’t end there. Investors have raced to dump UK government bonds as they worry about the extra £72 billion ($77 billion) in borrowing due before April. The yield on 5-year debt, which moves opposite prices, has jumped from about 3.6% to more than 4.4% over the past two trading sessions — an astronomical jump in a corner of the financial universe that typically logs movements in tiny fractions of a percent.
===============

The pound's crash will make inflation worse and push interest rates higher | CNN Business

The UK government's decision to implement the biggest tax cuts in 50 years while borrowing tens of billions of dollars to subsidize soaring energy costs this winter is a massive gamble that's sent shockwaves through financial markets.

www.cnn.com

 

[Peace]

What's your opinion on Hunter Biden? Or Hillary?

Same thing. I think they're both guilty as fork. The difference is, I'm not part of a witch hunt to burn them both to the ground. I've gotten past both of them. Biden Sr. is the real problem now.

 

[brandon]

If he's actually broken declassification laws then why hasn't he been convicted?

What's your opinion on Hunter Biden? Or Hillary?

Same thing. I think they're both guilty as fork.

This is not a logical progression of thought. You are arguing that because Trump hasn't been convicted that he therefore hasn't broken declassification laws. However, you believe that Hunter and Hillary are both "guilty as fork," even though neither have been convicted of anything.

The difference is, I'm not part of a witch hunt to burn them both to the ground.

Why not? If they're guilty of crimes, they should be convicted of them. It's not about burning them to the ground, but it is about making sure that no one is above the law. I'm completely fine with Hillary and Hunter going to jail if they committed crimes. Are you fine with Trump going to jail if he committed crimes?

I've gotten past both of them. Biden Sr. is the real problem now.

Why?

Clearly the anti-Trumpers want to convict, so why isn't the government following suit?

You can't convict someone without an indictment, and you don't file an indictment until you build a case you believe can win at trial. That process is still ongoing. They may find over the course of building the case that they don't have enough to win at trial, and no indictment is filed. But the process is very much ongoing .

 

[Peace]

This is not a logical progression of thought. You are arguing that because Trump hasn't been convicted that he therefore hasn't broken declassification laws. However, you believe that Hunter and Hillary are both "guilty as fork," even though neither have been convicted of anything.

Do you think Hunter and HRC are guilty?

Why not? If they're guilty of crimes, they should be convicted of them. It's not about burning them to the ground, but it is about making sure that no one is above the law. I'm completely fine with Hillary and Hunter going to jail if they committed crimes. Are you fine with Trump going to jail if he committed crimes?

Absolutely. If Trump is rightfully accused and convicted then he should go to jail. I just don't believe that is the case, and time will bear that out.

Why?

Because nobody is pursuing those two as far as I know.

When I talk about Joe Biden being the problem now, I'm referring to his incompetence and the fact that he is things like a climate activist.

You can't convict someone without an indictment, and you don't file an indictment until you build a case you believe can win at trial. That process is still ongoing. They may find over the course of building the case that they don't have enough to win at trial, and no indictment is filed. But the process is very much ongoing .

And it's going to keep on going until the democrats get their arses kicked in November and into 2024. This is probably another reason why I don't follow these hearings in the first place. they're actually heading to nowhere.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

.

And it's going to keep on going until the democrats get their arses kicked in November and into 2024. This is probably another reason why I don't follow these hearings in the first place. they're actually heading to nowhere.

How can the democrats lose when they are commiting massive voter fraud?

 

[Peace]

How can the democrats lose when they are commiting massive voter fraud?

Because USPS won't be nearly as involved.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Because there won't be massive mail in fraud.

Every single Republican loss will be blamed on it.... EVERY SINGLE ONE.... wanna put money on that? We all know the Rs won't sweep every election.

 

[Peace]

Every single Republican loss will be blamed on it.... EVERY SINGLE ONE.... wanna put money on that? We all know the Rs won't sweep every election.

You can't blame mail in ballots when most of the voters aren't mailing in their ballots. That's just common sense.

 

[brandon]

Do you think Hunter and HRC are guilty?

I think Hillary is guilty of gross incompetence, but the Justice Department did not find enough evidence to prosecute her with a crime. That seems like a reasonable stance and I generally agree with it.

I don't have enough information on Hunter to make an informed decision, but more importantly, I don't care. If Hunter turns out to be a criminal and is thrown in jail, I think it changes the calculus of the country's situation exactly zero. I don't think Hunter's situations have any bearing at all on Joe Biden's presidency.

So if he's guilty, lock him the hell up. I don't care at all, and I don't think it matters to the country at all, unlike if Hillary, Trump, or Joe Biden were to be convicted of crimes.

I cannot stress this enough - no one on the left gives two shirts about Hunter Biden. He's not the president and has no influence on the presidency.

Absolutely. If Trump is rightfully accused and convicted then he should go to jail. I just don't believe that is the case, and time will bear that out.

Cool. Then I don't see where we disagree. Pretty much none of the other Republicans on this forum have been able to say that, so it's refreshing to see this simple statement in black and white. And quite frankly, if it turns out that there's not enough evidence to prosecute him, then that's that unless more evidence comes to light later.

When I talk about Joe Biden being the problem now, I'm referring to his incompetence and the fact that he is things like a climate activist.

That's fine. I'm not sure I agree with your assessments, but reasonable people can disagree there. More important, however, is that neither being incompetent nor being a climate activist are crimes, and they do not threaten the very foundations of the country. We've had plenty of incompetent presidents in our history and have survived that just fine.

We've only had one that has attempted to usurp the rule of law for his own personal gain.

 

[efil4]

If he's actually broken declassification laws then why hasn't he been convicted? Clearly the anti-Trumpers want to convict, so why isn't the government following suit?

Clearly you can add " Federal prosecutorial processes " to the ever growing list of " Things Peace knows absolutely nothing about ( well, other than what he is told on Fox & Friends ) "

 

[Peace]

I think Hillary is guilty of gross incompetence, but the Justice Department did not find enough evidence to prosecute her with a crime. That seems like a reasonable stance and I generally agree with it.

I don't have enough information on Hunter to make an informed decision, but more importantly, I don't care. If Hunter turns out to be a criminal and is thrown in jail, I think it changes the calculus of the country's situation exactly zero. I don't think Hunter's situations have any bearing at all on Joe Biden's presidency.

So if he's guilty, lock him the hell up. I don't care at all, and I don't think it matters to the country at all, unlike if Hillary, Trump, or Joe Biden were to be convicted of crimes.

Can we both agree that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

I cannot stress this enough - no one on the left gives two shirts about Hunter Biden.

I do if his dad's been tangled up in something with him that's illegal.

Cool. Then I don't see where we disagree. Pretty much none of the other Republicans on this forum have been able to say that, so it's refreshing to see this simple statement in black and white. And quite frankly, if it turns out that there's not enough evidence to prosecute him, then that's that unless more evidence comes to light later.

I'm glad we've actually found common ground on something.

That's fine. I'm not sure I agree with your assessments, but reasonable people can disagree there. More important, however, is that neither being incompetent nor being a climate activist are crimes, and they do not threaten the very foundations of the country. We've had plenty of incompetent presidents in our history and have survived that just fine.

I never said his incompetence and climate activism are actual crimes, but other than that I think we're OK here too.

We've only had one that has attempted to usurp the rule of law for his own personal gain.

I'm going to hold off on my opinions there until I see more action from this side of the field.

 

[brandon]

Can we both agree that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

We can agree that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

In other words, you can absolutely be guilty of a crime without the prosecution being able to prove it and/or the jury convicting (OJ, anyone?). But in court, everyone must have the presumption of innocence. On that, I'd be happy to agree.

I do if his dad's been tangled up in something with him that's illegal.

Sure. If that's the case, prosecute Joe, convict him, and put him away. I don't think that's the case, but if it is, I have no problem with ensuring the guilty are brought to justice.

I'm glad we've actually found common ground on something.

It's the only way we can heal the country.

I never said his incompetence and climate activism are actual crimes, but other than that I think we're OK here too.

Look at us go!

I'm going to hold off on my opinions there until I see more action from this side of the field.

No problems here. Let's wrap this up and head over to the racism thread where there's still plenty left to hash out.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

You can't blame mail in ballots when most of the voters aren't mailing in their ballots. That's just common sense.

But Mail in Ballots will still be used very heavily. What makes you think they aren't?

 

[bdb13]

We don't have a single poster from the right on this site who genuinely attempts to engage and who doesn't just want to troll most of the time. Would definitely be more interesting if there was some sort of intellectualism coming from that side.

 

[superchuck500]

If he's actually broken declassification laws then why hasn't he been convicted? Clearly the anti-Trumpers want to convict, so why isn't the government following suit?

Because the investigation is ongoing (and Trump is dragging it out with his challenge and ridiculous, unprecedented order from Judge Cannon appointing a special master) but also it’s that DOJ has a long-standing policy of not charging politicians within 60 days of an election.

I think if we get through about March or so with no charges, then you can ask that question.

 

[coldseat]

Because the investigation is ongoing (and Trump is dragging it out with his challenge and ridiculous, unprecedented order from Judge Cannon appointing a special master) but also it’s that DOJ has a long-standing policy of not charging politicians within 60 days of an election.

I think if we get through about March or so with no charges, then you can ask that question.

That policy really shouldn't apply here. Trump is not running for office. It's like if Obama had committed a crime and the DOJ was ready to charge him but Democrats would said they shouldn't charge him because it's 60 days before the election.

 

[superchuck500]

That policy really shouldn't apply here. Trump is not running for office. It's like if Obama had committed a crime and the DOJ was ready to charge him but Democrats would said they shouldn't charge him because it's 60 days before the election.

It’s a policy - it applies when they say it does. I have seen some rationale that it’s more of a spirit of the policy that prevails over details. Trump is a major player in the GOP, will likely run in 2024, and has been active in his support of candidates in this election. It’s not really like Obama after his eight years in office.

 

[Peace]

Because the investigation is ongoing

I'll accept that for now...

 

[Taurus]

We don't have a single poster from the right on this site who genuinely attempts to engage and who doesn't just want to troll most of the time. Would definitely be more interesting if there was some sort of intellectualism coming from that side.

Or just acknowledgment of the same objective reality.