Has anyone else unblocked Musk on Twitter for a bit?
05.06.2025 21:36
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Has anyone else unblocked Musk on Twitter for a bit?
This isn’t a party. It’s a one-man show wrapped in a cheap suit of nationalism.
And if history's taught us anything, it's that when one man has all the answers and no one dares question him — that's not democracy. That's déjà vu.
Meanwhile, the chairman of the party admits he had “no idea” what their own policy was. Imagine the chair of any serious political party saying that out loud.
The truth? It doesn’t matter what the policy is — it only matters what Nigel says it is today.
Let’s talk about how Reform treats its own.
Rupert Lowe dared to criticise Farage. Within hours he was expelled and reported to the police for “bullying.” The police found no evidence, but the message was clear: step out of line and you're done.
When a party purges dissenters, demands absolute loyalty to a single unelected leader, and treats internal disagreement as a criminal offence, you have to wonder…
Because the last time we saw a party this obsessed with ‘strong leadership’ and silencing critics, it didn’t end well for Europe.
You say a rare appearance, but he's been to Scotland more times than he's been to Clacton so...
I mean that's the second part of this mystery isn't it? From my experience the top people in their respective fields don't work for free. They got where they are because they understand their value.
Asking software engineers to audit budgets staffing and efficiency is like asking Gordon Ramsey to fix your sink.
Smoke and mirrors that will be every bit as disastrous as Musk's attempt.
The poor things
I'm more than happy to see them consigned to the history books, polls this far out from an election aren't all that helpful. They have years to fix their image (however dishonestly)
But I do hope the trend continues
Musk's Twitter is a racist shit hole
When even the AI you carefully curated to be your personal echo chamber fucking hates you
Checks and balances exist for a reason. Disabling courts so unconstitutional orders can go unchallenged? That’s not strength—it’s authoritarianism.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision will determine whether one branch of government can neuter another—shifting the balance of U.S. democracy.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
Example: Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was swiftly blocked for likely violating the 14th Amendment.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...
It’s like complaining doctors treat too much smallpox—during a smallpox outbreak. Increased court intervention is a reaction to increased executive overreach.
The spike in injunctions corresponds with a surge in legally dubious executive orders. Since re-election, Trump has signed dozens—sparking 200+ lawsuits.
www.reuters.com/graphics/USA...
Trump’s Push to Undermine Judicial Oversight: A Dangerous Precedent 🧵
Trump is urging the Supreme Court to limit lower courts’ power to block his executive orders. He claims injunctions are at “epidemic” levels.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
I don't think this is real. You're telling me throughout that entire interview he didn't once make reference to the world woke web?
As an elected MP Richard is being paid £93k of taxpayers money each and every year.
Even their new MP opened her maiden speech with "I want to thank my colleagues for dragging themselves out of the pub to be here"
The wallpaper isn't the only thing that's outdated
For the first time in my life I find myself politically homeless. I can't in good faith support this government
It's madness
Final thoughts? Labour doesn’t need to mimic Reform UK. It needs to lead.
You can secure borders without criminalising compassion. You can uphold the law without undermining human rights.
This bill? It's not left. It's not centre. It's a swing toward authoritarianism.
And yes, it repeals Tory Rwanda policies. But don’t cheer too hard. Much of that cruelty is being quietly repackaged.
This isn’t a pivot toward compassion. It’s just a more polished boot stamping down harder, but with better PR.
Introducing the "Border Security Commander." Sounds neutral, right? Wrong.
This person will have centralised control over border enforcement — answering directly to the Home Secretary. That's a political post overseeing operational law enforcement.
Surveillance and data sharing are being massively expanded. Sections 27–33 allow wide-ranging data collection and sharing with foreign governments and private companies.
There is minimal oversight, and no guarantee your data won’t be misused or miscategorised.
The bill is full of vague language. "Likely to be useful" to immigration crime?
That could mean:
Teaching English
Explaining how the asylum process works
Warning people of unsafe conditions
Innocent help becomes a criminal offence.
Sections 13–16 are particularly chilling. They create offences for people who give aid or even "likely useful" information to those involved in immigration offences. There’s a defence for NGOs — but the burden of proof is on them.
This will scare people into silence or inaction.
Labour's new bill isn’t just "tough on borders." It criminalises acts that could indirectly support "immigration crime." That includes providing information or supplies to people who may be undocumented.
You know who this targets? Humanitarian aid workers. NGOs. Even journalists.
As Labour's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill makes it's way through parliament let’s break it down — because the job of the Labour Party isn’t to try to out-Hitler Nigel bloody Farage. (Thread) 🧵