But he argued voters were more frustrated with the pace of change than with his government, and vowed to set out "the steps that we will take to deliver the change that they want and that they deserve".
In what seemed to be a nod to the latest government reset, Starmer said he would double down on efforts to tackle a cost-of-living crisis compounded by conflicts in Ukraine and Iran.
That message seemed to cheer investors. Sterling strengthened against the U.S. dollar and British government borrowing costs fell - outperforming against U.S. and German debt.
But even for Starmer, there was no denying the scale of the terrible losses for Labour in elections for 136 local councils in England, and the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales - the most significant test of public opinion before the next general election due in 2029.
While an immediate challenge to his leadership looked unlikely, more than 20 Labour lawmakers publicly and privately called on Starmer to consider his position and set out a timetable for his departure.
"The prime minister cannot take our party into the next election," Simon Opher, a Labour lawmaker from southwest England said in a statement.
Defence minister John Healey rejected this, saying the last thing voters wanted was "the potential chaos of a leadership election".
"He’s not going to go, and he's not going to set a timetable," Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told BBC News.

INSURGENT PARTIES FRACTURE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
Starmer may struggle to turn things around after Labour lost control of a swathe of councils, responsible for services ranging from adult social care to rubbish collection, and prospective nationalist governments in Scotland and Wales.
The party lost power in Tameside in Greater Manchester in northern England for the first time in almost 50 years and in nearby Wigan, which it has controlled for more than 50 years, Labour lost all of its 20 seats to Reform.

Reform UK also took control of a London borough for the first time, winning in Havering in the east of Britain's capital, while the Greens won the mayoralty of traditionally Labour-supporting Hackney in east London.
In the town of Romford in Havering, retiree Gary Orford summed up the mood of many, by saying he wanted to give Farage a chance after being fed what he called a "pack of lies" by other politicians. "You can only give him a chance," he said.
While incumbent governments often struggle in midterm elections, pollsters forecast that Labour could lose the most council seats since 1995.
The Reform UK party had added 1,151 council seats in England by Friday evening. Labour had lost 1,015 seats and the official opposition Conservative Party was down 466 seats. Plaid won the most seats for the Welsh Senedd assembly, followed by Reform, and the SNP was well ahead in the Scottish parliament election.
The results showed how far the British political system had changed since as recently as 2017, when the two traditionally dominant parties - Labour and the Conservatives - gained a combined 82% of the vote in a general election.
They also showed how quickly voters have turned against Starmer. Since 2024, his time in office has been marked by several attempts to reset his agenda, policy U-turns, a rotating cast of advisers and scandal over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to the United States.

>>1513531
Why the absolute fuck would you give the fucking Brexit guy another chance? Did you seriously learn nothing?

>>1513535
I think it's because
1) Brexit was delivered by the Conservative party
2) Both the Conservative and Labour parties have failed to address public concerns over immigration

>>1513535
>>1513539
Its actually kind of funny in a sad sort of way. People wonder how we elected Trump twice, people wonder why Britain wants to elect the Brexit guy a second time. The answer is, and always has been simple - everyone just wants the government to deport the browns and is willing to vote for Reincarnated Mecha Hitler if that's what it takes to get rid of them. No party is willing to address the issue because they're unwilling and unable to keep the economy afloat after such a deportation. They're not prepared to offer incentives to get people to breed again, not prepared to dismantle feminism or ban contraceptive use, or to deal with the resulting fallout or the extra mouths to feed. All they're prepared to do is keep importing criminals and savages.

So both nations are actually in search of a third party prospect that's willing to trade the deportation of the browns for a seat at the table, because they can find no such cantidate among the main parties.

>>1513531
It's still a two party system. All eight Reform MPs (apart from Farage) are ex conservatives and were members of the last tory government. The Tory party fucked up and strip mined the country for their own benifit, then got voted out because of it. They then slapped on a new label (Reform) and you fucking dozy gullible idiots are voting the fuckers back in.

>>1513539
>Brexit was delivered by the Conservative party
And!? They're still voting for a guy who supported it!

>>1513541
>And you fucking dozy gullible idiots are voting the fuckers back in
We get the same sorts of comments on the other side of the pond. The operative problem is that there is no cantidate to vote for other than Trump that's willing to take a hard line on immigration in any capacity and the other side isn't willing to address that. I expect its much the same with the people voting for reform. They want the Indians and Pakistanis out and your side isn't willing to make a deal on that topic in exchange for their votes.

I'm honestly baffled. If any other party promised tomorrow that all the Mexicans would be gone from America or all the Indians would be gone from Britain, they'd have 90% of the vote overnight regardless of platform and backing, so why don't they? Why just sit there and bitch that the other side is unreasonable when you know exactly what everyone wants and will vote for?

All the Dems have to do is delete_brown.exe and they'll never see Cheeto Man again. All Labour has to do is delete_brown.exe and they'll never see Farage again. All the oomph would be right out of his argument because a more reasonable party is giving people what they want. So why don't they?

>>1513540
>The answer is, and always has been simple - everyone just wants the government to deport the browns
I agree.
One thing people don’t get is Reform UK won more than four million votes in the 2024 election, making it the third most voted-for party in the United Kingdom. By comparison, the Conservative Party got around six million votes. But because the UK uses a first-past-the-post electoral system, Reform ended up with fewer than 10 seats in Parliament, while, ironically, smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats won more than 70 seats despite receiving fewer votes than Reform.

In reality it's been popular for at least two years. So the shift is very obviously being caused by the very poor handling of immigration by both the Labour Party (as we are seeing now) and the Conservative Party, as we saw in 2024, when Rishi Sunak was the outgoing Prime Minister.

>>1513539
>Both the Conservative and Labour parties have failed to address public concerns over immigration
An example (Hull):
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/hull-local-election-results-2026-33867455
Central:
Muhammad Ayub (Reform): 420
Sharon Kassim (Labour): 515
Motokin Ali (Liberal Democrat): 567 - Elected
St. Andrew's & Docklands
Salman Anwar (Reform): 836 - Elected
https://i.postimg.cc/9QVTQVpf/fa-RAGE-prefers-indians-to-poles.jpg
But before this, London Olympics gold medallist Luke Campbell ran for Reform, for the post of elected mayor of Hull. He won, but later became so disillusioned with that party he left and became an independent.
>Salman Anwar (Reform): 836 - Elected
You tell Reform voters if Farage cares about their concerns about immigration.
Meanwhile, Hull still has a Liberal Democrat-led council.

>>1513543
>All the Dems have to do is delete_brown.exe and they'll never see Cheeto Man again. All Labour has to do is delete_brown.exe and they'll never see Farage again. All the oomph would be right out of his argument because a more reasonable party is giving people what they want. So why don't they?
Strange that a brown man - Obama - deported more illegals than an orange man ever will - can you say 'H1B'? - and HM Customs do things with little press coverage, and because their enforcement agents aren't ICE.
Would you vote for a supposedly 'anti-immigration' party - Reform - which runs brown candidates? And in the case of Hull, has one elected?

>>1513570
To be entirely fair, we want the enforcement agents to be ICE. We want the browns to know they're unwelcome and to be hauled out in cuffs or preferably in a box. We just didn't expect the other half of the government to throw such a bitch-fit as to risk civil war to protect their pet browns just so they don't have to pay citizens a fair wage.

>Would you vote for an anti-immigration party which runs brown cantidates?
Ideally no. Unfortunately there also aren't any parties at all - anywhere - that don't include brown cantidates. Labour, Reform, Republican, Democrat, all are complicit in using browns to undercut white votes and labor to some degree or another. The fringe cantidates are picking up steam by telling people what they want to hear and making a half-hearted attempt at Brown Deletus publically while still using browns under the table. Its not much, but its something. There really isn't anything else to vote for, hence my original question which you still haven't answered.

Why doesn't a party simply sweep the elections entirely by promising people no browns period? If what the politicians want is unchallenged control and a blank check to implement their policies, that is the platform that would win it for them overwhelmingly. So why don't they?

>>1513567
>south asian battle royale
and they say demographic replacement isn't happening

>>1513575
>To be entirely fair, we want the enforcement agents to be ICE. We want the browns to know they're unwelcome and to be hauled out in cuffs or preferably in a box. We just didn't expect the other half of the government to throw such a bitch-fit as to risk civil war to protect their pet browns just so they don't have to pay citizens a fair wage.
Last time they played apportionment games we ended up with 3/5 people and a civil war.

>>1513579
Maybe its time for another one. If we can't agree on such fundamental principles as 'browns bad' we're clearly in an institution past its sell-by date. Hell, I'd vote for Gulagus Supremus, Imperial Emperor of America if it meant that I never had to see another Mexican again. At this point I don't even care if the nation survives it or if I survive it. It'd be worth it.

>>1513581
Well, it would be fun to crush the skulls of lying trashy liggeral scummers like eggs, but I'm not so sure I want a civil war.

>>1513583
Nobody wants a civil war. But what recourse do we have? Everyone just keeps throwing a bitch-fit and making it increasingly hard to remove the browns. We had one (1) goal. Its very simple. Everyone south of a California Tan leaves the country. Its not complicated, its not even hard to implement. We've tried and exhausted every legal recourse. So what alternative is there?

Is there a cantidate we can vote for, or a policy we can enact? Do we have to go out and shoot every single one of them ourselves? What's the game plan here exactly? I'm not cheering for a civil war either, but when people vote for something, the side that loses is supposed to respect the vote and allow them to implement the policies they voted for. This flagrant disregard for democracy makes it necessary that we fight about it because we cannot use laws or words to accomplish the singular goal.

>>1513575
>So why don't they?
You ask a mainly white 1922 Committee why they chose a brown (unelected) PM prior to the 2024 general election, and a brown leader of the opposition since? Yet, Labour had a huge landslide with a white man. And if they decide to replace him (ironically, a Brown - as in Gordon - may save him), presumably with another white.
>We want the browns to know they're unwelcome and to be hauled out in cuffs or preferably in a box
...meanwhile, barely 48 hours ago, Salman Anwar (Reform, St. Andrew's & Docklands): 836 - Elected
So how's that opinion of yours working out for you?
>We
Hi, shill. Post hands or admit to being one of those browns Farage must have vetted himself, thus allowed to be elected.
>Why doesn't a party simply sweep the elections entirely by promising people no browns period? If what the politicians want is unchallenged control and a blank check to implement their policies, that is the platform that would win it for them overwhelmingly. So why don't they?
Because the world doesn't work the way you think it should. And because the vast majority of people don't think the the way you apparenly have the authority to tell them how they should think.
And why should they?
>th-th-they shouldn't allow browns in my sacred white 'alternatives!'
>white people voted for a party that was supposed to be 'anti-brown', yet that same party vetted & selected brown candidates, some of whom won
You tell me. Or are you too naive/blinded by your own bigotry to answer that question?

>>1513587
>So what alternative is there?
I think you'd be better off executing the gay faggot community organizer traitors than the browns.

>>1513593
We can do both. Both is good. But 'better off' isn't an option if the browns get to stay.

>>1513591
>Because the world doesn't work the way you think it should. And because the vast majority of people don't think the the way you apparenly have the authority to tell them how they should think.
>And why should they?
Actually it happened in 2016 and 2024. Getting rid of illegals, despite whatever european race they may be, is extremely popular.

>>1513595
The faggots protect the browns.
But actually maybe on second thought, we need to change that up to their billionaire donors who fund their terrorism.
No funding, no faggotry, no illegals. As getting rid of illegals is EXTREMELY popular. The on;y thing keeping them in the country is big money Democrats.

>>1513593
>the gay faggot community organizer traitors
https://i.postimg.cc/VNBvMDRY/trump-farage-goldenshower.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/cL2Y6MWB/trump-with-trans-gay-people.png
https://i.postimg.cc/9FGXbkcQ/trump-flag.png
>appears in public to the very fruity tune that is YMCA by The Village People
>was a regular at Studio 54: Gay Central in New York
And Farage is pals with a homo pedo, so there's a couple of traitors you can start with.

>>1513602
>The faggots protect the browns
>Trump: H1Bs. Also refuses to fire Ka$h Patel
https://i.postimg.cc/VNBvMDRY/trump-farage-goldenshower.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/cL2Y6MWB/trump-with-trans-gay-people.png
https://i.postimg.cc/9FGXbkcQ/trump-flag.png
>appears in public to the very fruity tune that is YMCA by The Village People
>was a regular at Studio 54: Gay Central in New York
QED
>billionaire donors
Trump has plenty of those, ergo he's a terrorist.

>>1513606
Yes, being gay is bad thanks for reminding me.
And if dRumpf is a fag, then he's had several kids and a super model wife so he's fucking it up pretty bad.
And Farage
>Waaahhhh! he got more votes, I'll call him a pedo
Have you ever stopped to think that it's your constant, stupid complaints and lies, that is entirely offputting and voters want nothing to do with no solution super Karens?

>>1513602
>No funding, no faggotry, no illegals
That's a good start. What about the rest of the browns? We don't want the anchor babies or the legitimate labor either, they all need to go back to their shitholes.

>>1513611
Not much you can do there legally with the current set up if you want all browns gone.
I think we could just go with the Democrat solution of balkanizing around racial lines. Perhaps hand the brown New Mexico of Nevada or some brown state.

>Have you ever stopped to think that it's your constant, stupid complaints and lies, that is entirely offputting and voters want nothing to do with no solution super Karens?
>>1513602
>The faggots protect the browns
billionaire donors
>if dRumpf is a fag
>YMCA
>Studio 54
https://i.postimg.cc/cL2Y6MWB/trump-with-trans-gay-people.png https://i.postimg.cc/9FGXbkcQ/trump-flag.png : or Trump would never associate with such
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guve7Y856kY
>Trump's pal Farage vetted & selected browns in Reform in local elections
But enough about the hypocrite >>1513609 .
The duality of such.
>if
Fine. Trump's bi. Which makes him just as bad. Disagree Mr 'I hate LGBTQ+, including the 'B' part of that equation. No Exceptions', and your hypocrisy's showing.

>>1513616
>Disagree Mr 'I hate LGBTQ+
Don't care. Still voting Trump.
You lost tranny.

>>1513614
Counter-argument. We shove all the browns into the southernmost part of Mexico and take the upper half of Mexico, turn it into a giant minefield and use it as a buffer zone. People can set up lawn chairs along the Rio Grande and take bets on how many minutes will pass before the next muffled 'thump' in the distance when Paco steps on a mine.

In no future are those shitskins getting any part of American clay. They need to be ejected when possible, killed if necessary.

>>1513611
>We don't want the anchor babies
Barron, via the First Whore. Who is an illegal.
You can start with them. Thus Donnie gets the ol' heave-ho out of not only the White House..
Disagree, and your own opinion doesn't have the right to exist. All anchor babies & those who spawned such deported - No Exception: including the Trumps - or they all stay, and you don't have the right to have opinions. Can't have it both ways.

>>1513619
I'm not that attached to the Trumps, I just want all the illegals gone and no other cantidate is offering even the barest hint of the vaguest whiff of a first step in heading in that direction, Anon. I don't care who we vote for. Dig Hitler up and reanimate him, I don't give a fuck. Deport whomever is required. Whatever it takes.

>>1513602
>The faggots protect the browns
>Trump is obviously bi
>>1513611
>We don't want the anchor babies
>Barron
>>1513617
>Don't care. Still voting Trump
>Don't care
>Republicans can redostrict all they like to ensure Reps win in midterms
>You Democrats don't have the right to do the same! That's cheating against we Republicans! Only we have the right to cheat!
'Rules for thee, but not for me', eh?
>what's been happening in elections since late last year
I'm not the one who's losing, projecting hypocrite. The bloodbath for the Republicans that'll be the midterms & beyond.
Reality doesn't care about your feelings, homo snowflake. Yes, you're a homo for not condemning your Homo Pedo-in-Chief if you hate all those you claim to do so: with No Exceptions. But not all, though.
That alone says so much about you.
>tranny
And your obsessions you like to project.

>>1513618
>In no future are those shitskins getting any part of American clay. They need to be ejected when possible, killed if necessary.
I mean I just don't think that's going to be popular enough or legal enough to win the battle.
If we're speaking in the hypothetical, there's only two solutions that may work:
1. All browns to their own state
This would give each race a cohesive culture they alone are responsible for which would be favorable to all parties.
2. Fedbux to buy them out of the US.
But again I don't think you could do either of those legally unless you presented it as 100% like Dems do for alll their racist horseshit.

>>1513621
>'Rules for thee, but not for me', eh?
Yeah it feels good doesn't it? Now you know after decades what it's like.
Sorry, not even close to sorry.

>>1513622
So we're back around to electing a dictator, overturning our democracy, and turning force multipliers and the military on the browns illegally (Though it'll be ruled legal because we wuz dictators now)

When there is no legal recourse, you have to turn to violence because the rule of law has failed. We can't give them a state because that would be allowing them to stay, we can't buy them out because they'll refuse to leave. So we can't use our words and we can't use our laws, and we have to go back to clubbing people over the head with napalm and daisy cutters until they get the message. Its unfortunate, but it is what it is.

>>1513620
>I'm not that attached to the Trumps, I just want all the illegals gone
>b-b-but I don't want the anchor spawn of an illegal and its enabler removed immediately, or how would that look for my 'No Exception' opinions?!
The world being not exactly as you would wish it to be, despite your pathetic prostestations to the contrary
>Whatever it takes
Nice fanfic. Just keep on a-keepin' on with those wrong opinions of yours - especially in a nondescript part of the internet that the vast majority of the audience you need to 'persuade' otherwise have never heard of, thus never appear in to listen to your wrong opinions - it'll eternally stay exacly that: the pathetic ventings in 'fanfic' form of an inferior subhuman: you, >>1513620

>>1513626
>But I don't want the anchor spawn...
I just said you can deport them, you mouthbreathing troglodyte. I don't care if you deport the Trumps, the Rothschilds, or the entire population of North Dakota. If your side is willing to agree that every single illegal immigrant, brown person, anchor baby and foreigner has to be removed from the country under pain of death, you can even deport ME. I'm not any of those people, but I just don't fucking care what I have to concede as long as the other side is willing to concede on that one singular point.

So are you, or are you not, willing to concede every single brown person leaving the nation if we do indeed deport the Trumps as well? Shit or get off the pot, faggot.

>>1513623
>Yeah it feels good doesn't it?
>Democrats 'Gerrymandering'
>y-y-you mustn't do that! Only we Republicans are allowed to cheat!
>all those elections ensuring a Midterm Massacre, and an unelectable Republican party beyond
A Democrat administration not wasting all that legislation laid down by Trump & co. Why shouldn't that Democrat administration use those laws to get their revenge on subhuman rightards for the crime of having wrong opinions - especially with a Palantir given to them by Trump, which that Democrat administration can use as a surveillance state to crack down on rightard thoughtcrime?
>Make the previous 'Cancel Culture' look like a 3-day ban on 4chan. But then, Alex Jones shutting down Infowars before then - prior to the Onion takeover - initiated that on himself, so that's a start: and during the Trump adminifrustration that'll ensure that bloodbath the Republicans will suffer later this year and a Democrat president in the White House beyond
Yeah, it does feels good, doesn't it?

>>1513628
Could we start with you?

>>1513631
Sure, go nuts, as long as all the browns still leave. I'm willing to die destitute and alone in a foreign country if it means there will be a generation of Americans in the future that never have to see a brown person. I can die on that proverbial hill if it means there will be some faint hope of decency and goodness in the world again at some point in the distant future, even if I'll never live to see it. Its worth it to give that to a future generation.

>>1513628
>if
Nice fanfic.
>we
You first, brown shill. Post hands or admit to being the very thing you want leaving America: what you aren't part of, because you're not white yourself. Again, post hands or you are a brown. And you don't have the right to deny it.
>willing to concede every single brown person leaving the nation
I'm extremely willing to say that you should leave first. Set an example, brown shill. Others know you are. Prove otherwise or admit by refusing to do so that you are what you hate.

>>1513632
Deal. Get out of here. We'll let you know when we start sending the browns.

>>1513634
Alright. I left. Send the browns out, and I mean all of them. Not just the illegals. Make it happen, cap'n.

>>1513633
I'll admit to being a flying cucumber if it means deportation for all the browns here.
>Post hands or you are a brown
Guess I'm a brown then. Start deporting.
>And you don't have the right to deny it.
Okay? I already said you could deport me along with all of them, I don't give a fuck about your identity politics. I'm a voter with a one-issue vote - Brown Deletus. Lets do it. Start accomplishing. Start with me if you want to, I don't care. But you promised there would be a generation of Americans who never have to see a brown again, so it'll be up to you to take up that cause and make it happen.

>>1513635
Oh no, I'm not falling for that again. You can't have self-deported THAT fast. Do it, fuck off, and come back in a month or whatever. With proof!

>>1513631
>Could we start with you?
Good post, >>1513631 . Why?:
>>1513632
>Sure, go nuts, as long as all the browns still leave. I'm willing to die destitute and alone in a foreign country if it means there will be a generation of Americans in the future that never have to see a brown person. I can die on that proverbial hill
So the shill on the hill is a brown. Thanks for admitting that, brown shill.
>as long as all the browns still leave
As long as you're the first to leave: if you're actually in US, that is. If not, you don't have the right to have opinions. Go ahead. The only one stopping you from leaving first: is you.
Every second you're not leaving America - if you actually are in that country - because you need to be there, fine. But it means that all other browns won't leave. Ever. And you don't have the right to think otherwise.
Either you start the ball rolling or you prove your own opinions wrong. I'd say 'shit or get off the pot', but said pot is a western invention, o ye that has no concept of the western invention that is the toilet.

>>1513637
Burden of proof is on the accuser. You accused me of not having left, so prove that I'm still there. I'm on the internet, for all you know I was never there to begin with and began this argument having deported myself ten years ago. There's no need to come back in a month, you can start right now. Today. This minute. Start with the brown people down the street and don't stop until you get halfway to Puerto Rico.

>>1513639
>for all you know I was never there to begin with and began this argument having deported myself ten years ago
Burden of proof is on the accuser

>>1513638
>So the shill on the hill is a brown
Then I ought to know.
>Thanks for admitting that
Sure. You set the parameters for the argument, even if they are retarded. I hope you're not suggesting that just because I'm brown, I'm unworthy of having a political opinion on the deportation of brown people. That would be racist, after all.

>As long as you're the first to leave
The operative condition was that ALL of the browns have to leave. If I have to be included in that group, then I'm willing to concede that point, but you have to set up a system, legally or illegally, by which all browns are ejected from the country at that very same time. I'd be interested to know how you intend to accomplish this, because if you don't have a good answer you admit to being a lying faggot who is arguing in bad faith and you concede that you have no authority to determine who is brown or who has to leave, and thus return the determination of these things to our lawfully-elected President since your ingenuine ass can't be bothered.

>>1513639
Because you offered to get deported. You can't make that offer if you already have. Unless you're actually a foreign shill and this is all bullshit, but in that case then you don't matter. Post hands, fag.

>>1513635
>Make it happen, cap'n
You'll have to ask the orange one to do so.
Perhaps Obama - who as president deported more illegals that Trump ever will - could be an adviser to the next Democrat administration.
After all, Nick Fuentes has stated that he would leave America when the Democtars win, so there's a start. Along with the persecution & deportation of all other undesirables from America: white rightards.

>>1513644
>Moving the goalposts this hard
We agreed that it was the browns that needed to leave. You're changing your argument retroactively to reflect your personal beliefs rather than adhering to what we agreed to as gentlemen and citizens. What does that say about you?

>>1513646
>brown
>gentlemen
Your character's breaking down, anon.

>>1513641
>but you have to set up a system, legally or illegally, by which all browns are ejected from the country at that very same time
You can ask the one curremtly in the White House about that. He's big(ly) on illegal things.
Burden of proof is on the accuser.
Every second you're not telling Trump to do so - and according to your fanfics that are your 'vents' here, you are such the great persuader that you can make no less than reality bend to your will - you actually want browns to continue to exist in America in perpetuity. You want them removed, the onus is on you, o 'Great Persuader'. So go ahead. Shit or never use the pot because you're a toilet-avoider.

>>1513646
>We
You keep self-reporting, shill.
>goalposts
There aren't goalposts in the Indian sport of Kabaddi, so just keep running around while chanting your mantra.

>>1513647
Its not a character, I simply refuse to get drawn into this battle of semantics you keep using to ignore the original point. You want to call me brown? Go for it. You want to deport me with them? Go for it. You want to bitch about -isms, go in circles about legality, set conditions that don't make any sense, or try to discount my argument out of hand because it does not align with your idea of acceptable behavior? Sure, go nuts. This is the internet, I can't stop you. I'm not going to go in circles trying to prove to you that I'm this color or that, I'm not going to shitfling at your political party of choice, I'm here for precisely one reason, which I have never lied about or obfuscated since my very first post ITT: To come together in common cause with the other side on whatever conditions they think are necessary for them to concede the deportation of all browns from the nation in which I live and for no other reason.

Will you or will you not concede to this point, and what conditions do you require? First it was just that we had to allow you to deport Trump and his family. We agreed to that, then you wanted me. I agreed to that. Then you called me brown. I agreed to that. I don't give a fuck what concessions you want. Stop going in circles, figure out what you want in exchange for the browns being deported and post it. I'll wait.

>>1513650
I already said. You're not fulfilling your end of the bargain.
I would also settle for you killing yourself, but would need that live streamed. I'm sure you understand.

>>1513651
>Still avoiding the question
We agreed that I would have to be the first to go, not that I would have to go in advance of the rest. Set everything up for the entire brown population to be deported and put me at the front of the line, but we all go together so that i can make sure that you, too, fulfill your end of the bargain. You can watch the entire thing happen in real-time with your own eyes, there's no standard more fair or impartial than that. Does that sound reasonable to you?

>>1513650
That's quite the character you keep playing here in /news/, shill. You're clearly insecure, regardless of if you're in America or not.
I'm not insecure like you continually are. I never so much as think of behaving the way you do here, so what's your excuse?
If you were secure in your so-called 'mindset', you wouldn't even think of being in /news/. Every second you are here, you prove you're insecure.
Want to prove you're not insecure? Leave /news/ now and never return. If you do then return to /news/ again or you don't leave, you prove how insecure you are: and therefore how inferior you are to to those who would never so much as think of behaving the way you do here.
Besides, if you have this insecurity due to a mental deficiency/handicap and you have the life or death need to 'vent' the way you do, there's always /pol/ to satiate your mental handicap. And at least it's a circlejerk echo chamber of those like you.

>>1513652
If you're not going to do part then this conversation is over. If you can post proof of your deportation or death, then we can talk about this again, but not before.

>>1513653
>Still ignoring the question, post after post after post
I didn't ask you who you thought was insecure or who you think is in America, or what you think about me. I asked what conditions you thought were necessary as a trade for the deportation of all the browns. Answer the question.

You didn't ask me anything, >>1513655 . But the way you replied - and you cannot spell 'Replied' without the word Lied - just demonstrates how insecure you are or you wouldn't so much as think of asking questions of others. If your so-called 'mindset' is suppoed to be 'superior' to that of everyone else not exavctly like you.
But the fact you not only need to continually argue the toss with others but have this life or death need to exist in /news/ proves your insecurity: your 'superior' mindset that doesn't need to be questioned thus you don't need to 'debate' with others because - in your brain cell - you've apoarently 'won' any & all debates now & in perpetuity because of that supposedly 'superior' mindset of yours. You in /news/ = you're insecure.
Want to prove me wrong? Leave /news/ or be proven that not only are you insecure your 'mindset' proves itself to be inferior. Go ahead. The only one stopping you from proving me wrong about your insecurity thus your life or death need to continue to exist in /news/: is you.

Local councils don’t have any authority over immigration you bunch of retards

>>1513535
Russia's pushing hard on the propaganda front. They know that Britain is one of the biggest thorns in their ass and the best way to pluck that thorn is to make them elect retards.

>>1513657
>Still being a disingenuous faggot and filling posts with irrelevant schlock that has nothing to do with the topic at hand
Okay.

>>1513540
"Getting rid of the br of end" is an extremely reductionist point of view and makes it about race, and the reality is that it has nothing to do with race. The US and UK population are just sick of immigrants being a protected class that get everything for free and are allowed to commit crimes without punishment. Walk around any area in the UK and you'll see hundreds of Muslims and gypsies begging and they attack citizens and tourists. The police only show up if you punch one of them back. People are tired of being taxed to pay for this and the government just wants to import more because it's supposedly needed for replacement, not the immigrants are a net loss in ever way.

>>1513662
Do you ever worry about Chinese Propaganda and influence? I hear many warnings about Russia I wonder how true they are

>>1513698
They will call you a racist or a conspiracy theorist, but they won't be able to explain why thousands of girls were sexually abused and traffic by Muslims, for over a decade. While the police were afraid to investigate because they would be called racist.

>>1513543
>. If any other party promised tomorrow that all the Mexicans would be gone from America or all the Indians would be gone from Britain, they'd have 90% of the vote overnight regardless of platform and backing, so why don't they? Why just sit there and bitch that the other side is unreasonable when you know exactly what everyone wants and will vote for?
The goal is to destroy the white population as ordered by the elite class that control the politicians. Look at Trump, more deportations, but you have to take a war for Israel.

>>1513698
It is about race. The US and UK are just sick of immigrants. Its true that they're a protected class and that never should have been allowed, but the easiest and most reasonable way to make sure there are never any groups within your nation that are not your nation's own citizens is to simply not allow people in who are not your nation's citizens. Its dangerous to allow out-groups in your in-group. Every civilization from the Hittites to the Trojans to the Romans to the British have struggled with this, written about it, and warned future generations that allowing the barbarians inside the gates eventually results in a nation where you aren't led by your own people and your interests are ignored in favor of outsiders.

There's no need to be racist if there are no other races in your nation to hate, so why don't we start there if you're serious about keeping race out of it?

>>1513703
You're acting like race isn't an issue in a place like Japan because the population is over 95% ethnic Japanese

>>1513703
The US is literally almost entirely migrants or descendants of them retard.

>>1513535
> import bazillions of criminally prone 3rd world rapists
> give them bazillions of dollars in welfare
> imprison native Brits who dare complain

Gee, I wonder why voters choose Reform?...

>>1513706
Settlers are not the same as migrants. The US is majority settlers and their descendents, the people who moved here to build a nation and to wipe out the native savages in the hopes of building a better life. Immigrants came later, hoping to piggyback off the settlers' success or extract wealth from their nation once it was already built. There's a huge difference.

If you're the descendent of a settler, you're an American and should be allowed to stay. If you're the descendent of a migrant, you should fuck off and die in a fire. Its not complicated.

>>1513706
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship to "free white persons"
America is literally almost entirely free white persons or descendants of them retard. That has been true since the country was founded

>>1513699
I mean probably. China is likely more focused on screwing the US though. Russia hates Britain specifically.

>>1513725
Trump is a descendant of migrants. Well played, sir.
Now about Britain, who are the settlers?

>>1513738
We weren't talking about Trump and we weren't talking about Britain, you claimed, and I quote
>The US is literally almost entirely migrants or the descendents of them retard
To which I correctly answered that we are in fact not a nation of migrants, we are a nation of settlers, and migrants need to fuck off back to their own countries. Here's your (You).

>>1513746
I didn’t claim that, it wasn’t me. Trump is a migrant in this scenario though, is that right?

>>1513725
>>1513746
>We're not migrants, we're settlers!
40% of the US population is descended from people that migrated in the last century.

>>1513746
The thread topic is important to consider

>>1513693
>continuing to exist in /news/ by replying here & anywhere else
Thanks for admitting you're insecure, thus your 'mindset' is inferior. You wouldn't need to exist in /news/ if you weren't insecure about that 'mindset' of yours which you claim is 'superior' to everyone else's.

>>1513757
And they all need to leave because they're not Americans and they don't belong here.

>>1514042
Where will they go? We don’t want them in Europe, there’s a reason they left here or were gotten rid of in the past, most of them won’t fit in here, some of them are alright

>>1513746
Hey, let’s talk about Trump. Is he descended from settlers?

>>1513725
>telling Trump to die in a fire
This is treason