The Donald Trump thread

[Heathblue]

If you're going to palm off someone else's quote as your own, at least make sure it's not one that he got widely ridiculed for

https://x.com/PeterTwinklage/status/1909272973875241466

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerro...what-happened/

Where you been mate I've missed you.

By the way, I saw it on the DC Draino feed 👍

[JamesWales]

"Mummy, mummy, please make the man with the truth go away. He's spoiling my playtime."

I don't think you like being told you're utterly wrong, know nothing of which you speak and are determinedly misleading people with agitprop posts.

Go ahead report me. I'm not sure what for exactly ... because I said if you believed the tripe you posted you're an idiot? You do know it's an internet message board and not the sand pit in the local park, right?

I will report you for each unrelated personal insults going forward. It's your modus operandi. Ignore questions and points made and follow back with nothing but insults.

It ruins internet forums the world over, and if you can't debate properly then don't join in

[JamesWales]

[QUOTE=Dorcus;5583047]

The Rotherham rioters were Right Wing malignant terrorists full stop. They put innocent people's lives in danger. We should wipe the floor with these evil misfits.

In which case you won't struggle to find a report on the events that paints it in such a way, will you?

[Dorcus]

[QUOTE=JamesWales;5583109]

In which case you won't struggle to find a report on the events that paints it in such a way, will you?

Indeed not, you're right. The Truth has a way of revealing itself over time.

[JamesWales]

I know you won't understand/listen/take your rightwing blinkers off ... whatever. We judge Brexit by the counterfactual of where Britain would have been had it not occurred. Everyone who has any expertise will tell you Britain is worse off. But apparently you know better. Cross sectional comparisons are not good guides.

Go on, complain that I've maligned you by failing to agree with your one-eyed bollocks.

I don't think suggesting comparisons between peer nations is right-wing blinkers. You just say that because you can't answer the question.

Thanks for confirming you base your strongly held belief entirely on predictions whilst ignoring actual data. If you deal in fantasy scenarios you can never be proved wrong I guess. If you deal in facts then you are wrong, however.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

[QUOTE=JamesWales;5583109]

In which case you won't struggle to find a report on the events that paints it in such a way, will you?

That's a post by dorcus , not me

That being said I totally agree with it , the rioters were racist filth and got everything they deserved and more

I have posted recently a film from a hidden camera in the middle of those racist scum attacking the hotel up at Rotherham

Racial insults and violent racist behaviour

Scroll back and take a look

That will show even an ostrich like you about the real reasons for the riots

I notice you ignored it last time so here's your chance

[JamesWales]

[QUOTE=SLUDGE FACTORY;5583115]

That's a post by dorcus , not me

That being said I totally agree with it , the rioters were racist filth and got everything they deserved and more

I have posted recently a film from a hidden camera in the middle of those racist scum attacking the hotel up at Rotherham

Racial insults and violent racist behaviour

Scroll back and take a look

That will show even an ostrich like you about the real reasons for the riots

I notice you ignored it last time so here's your chance

I know it was from Dorcus 🤷.

The point is the disgraceful riots were a complex and toxic mix of various issues, one of which and the motivation for many was indeed racial hatred. These things never have a single cause though. This is the case for nearly every riot going. There is a spark, but the causes, motivation and ingredients are never solely one thing. That's the case for every riot going, and is absolutely the same with the riots in 2011for example, the ones in Swansea a couple of years ago, the BLM ones in America, all of them. Not everyone involved in 2011 did so out of solidarity with Mark Duggan and not everyone involved last summer did so due to racial hatred. Huge factor? Yes. Biggest factor? Probably. Sole factor? Nope.
You must have seen some trouble at football before to know about group mentality?

If you can find a reputable source that says there is only one cause and all rioters and all those arrested shared the same views then please share it.

https://www.citystgeorges.ac.uk/news...agedy-uk-riots

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/what-caused-...ts-in-britain/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-young-people

[az city]

I will report you for each unrelated personal insults going forward. It's your modus operandi. Ignore questions and points made and follow back with nothing but insults.

It ruins internet forums the world over, and if you can't debate properly then don't join in

There is something wrong with someone who takes themself so seriously as you.

You ruin every thread by posting your ignorant contrarian agitprop tripe. Sludge is funny, you never are.

[az city]

I don't think suggesting comparisons between peer nations is right-wing blinkers. You just say that because you can't answer the question.

Thanks for confirming you base your strongly held belief entirely on predictions whilst ignoring actual data. If you deal in fantasy scenarios you can never be proved wrong I guess. If you deal in facts then you are wrong, however.

Absolute rubbish as normal. Once again you are claiming some kind of expertise that you don't possess. You don't know what you're talking about.

Here's a very simple question for you: what qualifications and experience do you have to claim expertise in debating Economics?

Answer:
1. GCSE/O Level
2. A Level
3. S Level
4. 1 or 2 college classes for non-Economics majors
5. BS/BA/BSc
6. MA/MS/MSc
7. PhD

Just reply with the relevant options in the answer listed.

[JamesWales]

There is something wrong with someone who takes themself so seriously as you.

You ruin every thread by posting your ignorant contrarian agitprop tripe. Sludge is funny, you never are.

No one is appointing you as a judge in the humour stakes.

[Eric Cartman]

The EU contains a large number of eastern European countries still typically growing faster as they develop post communism - obviously lessening as time passes.

Compare the UK with western European peers - France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Netherlands and the like. And pick a metric. The difference is marginal on every level. An unmitigated disaster it is not. Nor is it a wild success story. The truth is pretty anodyne.

Whether we are doing better or worse than a certain country or the entire block on any given metric isn't really the central point anyway. The almost inevitable result of increasing barriers to trade is that both parties are worse off. Brexiteers have created this false narrative that as long as the UK trudges along broadly in line with France/Germany that Brexit wasn't a failure, exports of goods are down, businesses have made it pretty clear that it's harder to sell into the single market now. This was all inevitable, the measure of whether Brexit was a success or failure can only really be 'where would we (and the EU) have been without it' and you can think that is crystal ball economics if you want but goods exports to the EU were growing pre-brexit and have fallen since it, so it feels pretty safe to me, it's also worth noting that far from replacing these markets and trading with the rest of the world instead, our goods exports are down with the rest of the world as well, which was mind numbingly predictable and obvious to everyone except those running the leave campaign.

Well, in fairness I guess there is another way to measure the success of Brexit, has anything that brexiteers said during the campaign come true? How does the vision of Brexit, these automatic benefits that would just appear, measure up to the realities.

[JamesWales]

Absolute rubbish as normal. Once again you are claiming some kind of expertise that you don't possess. You don't know what you're talking about.

Here's a very simple question for you: what qualifications and experience do you have to claim expertise in debating Economics?

Answer:
1. GCSE/O Level
2. A Level
3. S Level
4. 1 or 2 college classes for non-Economics majors
5. BS/BA/BSc
6. MA/MS/MSc
7. PhD

Just reply with the relevant options in the answer listed.

I can read facts and place a greater importance on them rather than theoretical models.

You can say "Brexit is an unmitigated disaster" and produce only a model.

But if you look at facts, of the economy as a whole, the evidence absolutely does not back up your very hyperbolic statement. It just doesn't.

An expert in football will have an opinion on the outcome of the afternoons games. It doesn't counter the actual results come 5pm though. That's the problem (aside from the general anger and insults) with what you are saying. Your summary is only valid by completely ignoring real data on GDP, unemployment, markets, wages, inflation, all the usual key metrics.

I have taken the time to post this on numerous occasions but you just don't respond to it and if you do it's an angry insult.

[az city]

I can read facts and place a greater importance on them rather than theoretical models.

You can say "Brexit is an unmitigated disaster" and produce only a model.

But if you look at facts, of the economy as a whole, the evidence absolutely does not back up your very hyperbolic statement. It just doesn't.

An expert in football will have an opinion on the outcome of the afternoons games. It doesn't counter the actual results come 5pm though. That's the problem (aside from the general anger and insults) with what you are saying. Your summary is only valid by completely ignoring real data on GDP, unemployment, markets, wages, inflation, all the usual key metrics.

I have taken the time to post this on numerous occasions but you just don't respond to it and if you do it's an angry insult.

So the answer is you have NO qualifications.

I'm not angry with you I actually pity you.

[JamesWales]

Whether we are doing better or worse than a certain country or the entire block on any given metric isn't really the central point anyway. The almost inevitable result of increasing barriers to trade is that both parties are worse off. Brexiteers have created this false narrative that as long as the UK trudges along broadly in line with France/Germany that Brexit wasn't a failure, exports of goods are down, businesses have made it pretty clear that it's harder to sell into the single market now. This was all inevitable, the measure of whether Brexit was a success or failure can only really be 'where would we (and the EU) have been without it' and you can think that is crystal ball economics if you want but goods exports to the EU were growing pre-brexit and have fallen since it, so it feels pretty safe to me, it's also worth noting that far from replacing these markets and trading with the rest of the world instead, our goods exports are down with the rest of the world as well, which was mind numbingly predictable and obvious to everyone except those running the leave campaign.

Well, in fairness I guess there is another way to measure the success of Brexit, has anything that brexiteers said during the campaign come true? How does the vision of Brexit, these automatic benefits that would just appear, measure up to the realities.

In judging the success or otherwise of a huge political and economic event, why on earth would you only consider the export and import of goods?

I'm not saying it's not important, it is. But why would you only consider that?

If Scotland voted for independence, their trade with the UK may go down (for arguments sake) but if their GDP growth remained broadly the same, if their unemployment rate was slightly lower, if their inflation was broadly comparable, if their stock exchange performed slightly better etc, etc, would you consider that an unmitigated disaster?

The reality is mix of good and bad and the reality is that on some key metrics we have outperformed our peers, and on some we haven't.

Brexit is neither an "unmitigated disaster" nor a roaring success. If anything, it's meh.

[Dorcus]

Whether we are doing better or worse than a certain country or the entire block on any given metric isn't really the central point anyway. The almost inevitable result of increasing barriers to trade is that both parties are worse off. Brexiteers have created this false narrative that as long as the UK trudges along broadly in line with France/Germany that Brexit wasn't a failure, exports of goods are down, businesses have made it pretty clear that it's harder to sell into the single market now. This was all inevitable, the measure of whether Brexit was a success or failure can only really be 'where would we (and the EU) have been without it' and you can think that is crystal ball economics if you want but goods exports to the EU were growing pre-brexit and have fallen since it, so it feels pretty safe to me, it's also worth noting that far from replacing these markets and trading with the rest of the world instead, our goods exports are down with the rest of the world as well, which was mind numbingly predictable and obvious to everyone except those running the leave campaign.

Well, in fairness I guess there is another way to measure the success of Brexit, has anything that brexiteers said during the campaign come true? How does the vision of Brexit, these automatic benefits that would just appear, measure up to the realities.

Apart from the immense Economic miscalculation the political fallout is catastrophic. With a rogue USA reneging on democracy the World needs a powerful counter weight in the West. That can only be a united and strong Europe. The UK is an irreplaceable factor in that context and Brexit has shattered the model into tiny pieces. Incidentally that was always the aim of bad actors around the World such as Putin and Trump and a large number of other rich and influential right wing interests.

[JamesWales]

So the answer is you have NO qualifications.

I'm not angry with you I actually pity you.

You don't need a PhD to know that facts are worth more than a theory or model.

If your statement were true (and it isn't) it would bare fruit in the display of key economic data.

But you never produce that. When asked you play another one of your ad hominem attack cards.

You can pity me all you like. I'm not the one making outlandish statements and then abusing people for having a different opinion on an internet forum.

[JamesWales]

Apart from the immense Economic miscalculation the political fallout is catastrophic. With a rogue USA reneging on democracy the World needs a powerful counter weight in the West. That can only be a united and strong Europe. The UK is an irreplaceable factor in that context and Brexit has shattered the model into tiny pieces. Incidentally that was always the aim of bad actors around the World such as Putin and Trump and a large number of other rich and influential right wing interests.

I do agree that a strong and stable European continent is important, but hasn't Europe shown a pretty united front on Ukraine irrespective of whether countries are in the EU or not? I think the european response is more unified than any war I can remember.

[Dorcus]

I do agree that a strong and stable European continent is important, but hasn't Europe shown a pretty united front on Ukraine irrespective of whether countries are in the EU or not? I think the european response is more unified than any war I can remember.

A loose confederation of the willing is no match for a united entity with hierarchical command and control structures and political clout

[JamesWales]

A loose confederation of the willing is no match for a united entity with hierarchical command and control structures and political clout

Pro's and cons I guess. The problem with the latter is it's hard to achieve as it's difficult to make every country and it's voters want the same thing.

But i do think Europe has been more united over Ukraine than pretty much anything I can remember, which has been a good thing so far

[az city]

You don't need a PhD to know that facts are worth more than a theory or model.

If your statement were true (and it isn't) it would bare fruit in the display of key economic data.

But you never produce that. When asked you play another one of your ad hominem attack cards.

You can pity me all you like. I'm not the one making outlandish statements and then abusing people for having a different opinion on an internet forum.

Apples are not oranges, you twit. Apparently, you know more than the OBR: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/th...s/#assumptions

[az city]

[QUOTE=JamesWales;5583157]You don't need a PhD to know that facts are worth more than a theory or model.

If your statement were true (and it isn't) it would bare fruit in the display of key economic data.

But you never produce that. When asked you play another one of your ad hominem attack cards.

You can pity me all you like. I'm not the one making outlandish statements and then abusing people for having a different opinion on an internet forum.[/QUOTE

Direct from the OBR in 2025

"Specifically, our latest economy forecast assumes that:

The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information).
Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU. The size of this adjustment is calibrated to match the average estimate of a number of external studies that considered the impact of leaving the EU on the volume of UK-EU trade (see our November 2016 EFO for more information). Impacts on export and import growth are similar, therefore downward revisions to gross trade flows are broadly neutral in their effect on the current account over the medium term. Box 2.5 of our October 2021 EFO and Box 2.6 of our March 2022 EFO provide initial assessments of this assumption.
New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment).
We had assumed that the Government’s new post-Brexit migration regime would reduce net inward migration to the UK, settling at 129,000 a year in the medium-term, based on the ONS ‘zero net EU migration variant’ of the 2018-based population projections (see Box 2.4 of our March 2020 EFO). We have since revised up our projections for net migration to reflect evidence of sustained strength in inward migration since the post-Brexit migration regime was introduced. We now assume net migration settles at 315,000 a year in the medium term, based on the ONS 2021-based interim population projections (see Box 2.3 of our March 2024 EFO). This compares to 245,000 in our November 2023 forecast, which was based on the ONS 2020-based interim migration projections."

You'll note they aren't doing cross sectional comparisons as is YOUR erroneous want.

[az city]

Pro's and cons I guess. The problem with the latter is it's hard to achieve as it's difficult to make every country and it's voters want the same thing.

But i do think Europe has been more united over Ukraine than pretty much anything I can remember, which has been a good thing so far

Did they ever explain apostrophes in the "school" you "frequented"?

[JamesWales]

Did they ever explain apostrophes in the "school" you "frequented"?

Oh my word, you are a grown man and you actually typed that! 😂

For now, I'm off to sleep, have a great evening 👍

[az city]

Oh my word, you are a grown man and you actually typed that! 😂

For now, I'm off to sleep, have a great evening 👍

Off with your tail between your legs. Absolutely routed.

[Eric Cartman]

In judging the success or otherwise of a huge political and economic event, why on earth would you only consider the export and import of goods?

I'm not saying it's not important, it is. But why would you only consider that?

If Scotland voted for independence, their trade with the UK may go down (for arguments sake) but if their GDP growth remained broadly the same, if their unemployment rate was slightly lower, if their inflation was broadly comparable, if their stock exchange performed slightly better etc, etc, would you consider that an unmitigated disaster?

The reality is mix of good and bad and the reality is that on some key metrics we have outperformed our peers, and on some we haven't.

Brexit is neither an "unmitigated disaster" nor a roaring success. If anything, it's meh.

Sorry sir, I'll get my full analysis on your desk by Monday, seriously?

Trade was massively talked about before Brexit, none of the promises of the leave campaign came true, all of the obvious effects of increasing barriers to trade came true and this thread is about Donald Trump who has just decided to scattergun tariffs (barriers to trade) around the world. Yeah I just can't think why I am focusing on trade?

'the reality is that on some key metrics we have outperformed our peers, and on some we haven't'

Seriously do you not get it yet after being told 15 million times in 15 million different threads? The success of Brexit isn't decided by us outperforming our peers, it is decided by us outperforming where we would have been if we hadn't left the EU.

Every independent authority who has done serious economic analysis of Brexit says one thing, we are worse off economically than we would have been. But it's okay because we did it for the benefits, which I am sure are just round the corner.