The listed excerpts are actually quite tame compared to what the actual plan is.

slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security

invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and directing the DOJ to pursue Trump adversaries

create a federally funded "American Academy" that would deliver online courses and grant free degrees that excluded "wokeness or jihadism". The plan would also be funded by taxing the endowments of major universities

every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method

I stopped looking, not because there was any shortage of further crazy shit. There’s plenty more.

Yeah, and there’s a fair amount of money behind this push…which like…I’m not American, don’t live in the States, but my sister and her wife do…and I’ve gotta figure out how to get them the fuck out if things go Trump again…

also, living in the UK

Yeah, I’ve been following UK politics by way of TrashFuture podcast and I gotta say… your immigration plan is to deport people to Rwanda and your government just endorsed a Trans-Panic Committee to decide whether teenagers can consent to gender-affirming care.

And these are the moderate Labour Party positions. Liz Truss wants to do worse.

The Rwanda asylum scheme is and has been a Tory plan from its inception, and has never been endorsed by Labour. I’m not familiar with the TrashFuture podcast, but can recommend Pod Save the UK if you’re in the market for UK politics pods.

telegraph.co.uk/…/labour-could-keep-sunaks-rwanda…

Baroness Jenny Chapman, a frontbencher who was Sir Keir’s political secretary, was asked whether Labour would axe the scheme if 10,000 migrants had been flown to Rwanda by the time of the election.

The peer, who was a member of the shadow cabinet, replied: “If it did, as a major major leap with a thought experiment, then we might be having a different conversation but there is absolutely no evidence this is going to work.”

Pretty big stretch to call that any kind of endorsement, don’t you think?

It’s cowardly triangulation intended to straddle the issue, rather than denounce the policy.

It was explicitly a hypothetical thought experiment. Starmer has already said they wouldn’t go through with the Rwanda plan, even if it did somehow prove effective. That’s all stated plainly in the article you linked (from the Telegraph!). It really seems like you’re just doubling down in the face of the evidence, rather than admitting to having made an incorrect statement.