candide

You may disagree as much ss you want , but there is never an instant implementation of policies. Plus deaths occur around one month after first symptoms. There is an excuse. The anti-vaccine and anti-mask propaganda and actions from a significant number of Trumpers, lead to a higher death rate among people who voted for Trump. Basically, Biden has been prevented from getting the full effect of his Covid-19 policies by his inconsequential political opponents.

So it's not a relevant comparison. The policies of a new president are not implemented from day 1 of his presidency. During the first months it's the effect of the previous president's policies. This is not neutral as he was intronised at the peak of Covid-19 deaths, during the third wave.

1. Which are the two periods of time you are comparing? Are they comparable in length? When do you assume the effect of Trump's policies was replaced by the effects of Biden's policy (not his first day as president, obviously)? 2.In particular in counties that voted Trump, as the rate of antivaccine people Is higher https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/03/the-changing-political-geography-of-covid-19-over-the-last-two-years/

Don't let the tourists in! ???? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/captiol-riot-andrew-clyde-chamber-b1848332.html

I think that the two were put in the list as a bait.. The GOP Senate blocked the first attempt at a bipartisan commission, and I doubt the Republicans really wanted to participate in the House Committee. They could have proposed other names but they didn't, thinking it would be better for them to criticize the Committee as being partisan. I guess after that they regretted this decision, as it left them without knowing what was happening in the Committee. So structurally, there may be a suspicion of unfairness, however: - it is at least as much the fault of the GOP as the Dems, - there has been no obvious unfair behaviour of the Committee - about the choice of witnesses, it can be observed that (once again), It's the people more likely to defend Trump who have refused to testify.

And they were not even hiding it, in particular Jim Jordan.

Spot on!

The problem is that Trump tells so much B.S. that a large part of it nearly gets unnoticed.

NK resumed its frequent missile testing early 2019. Experts think that the pause between 2017 and 2019 was corresponding to the timing of different R&D programs. In case you did not notice, during Trump's mandate, there has been a pandemic and energy price was low. It wasn't a good time for Russia to start a war with a rather large country such as Ukraine.

If she testifies, It's going to be interesting! ????

You did not read well. I made the point that immigration from former British colonies has been much higher than from the EU. I just mentioned India and Pakistan as example. According to the ONS, among non-UK born, there were 3.5 million EU born (incl. 415,00 Irish who always benefited from a special regime) and 6 million non-EU born. Country heritage is not considered in these stats. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/ukpopulationbycountryofbirthandnationality/2020 @Bluespunk the reason I mentioned it was that I was anticipating the usual EU bashing about it.. And there was no mention of country heritage.

And if one excludes Irish immigrants for obvious reasons, not so much caused by EU nationals. The largest share of immigrants has been from former British colonies, in particular India and Pakistan.

According to this article there is a UK law which may be used, but It's not what the Geneva Convention says. There is also a jurisprudence against it, if I understand well, as also cited in the article. So, at least according to international law, they have no obligation to apply in France. As the article states: "OUR VERDICT Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries."

Up to my knowledge, there is no such obligation, Do you have a source confirming your assertion? (I mean a law analysis, not a politician's statement).

Easy to find with Google search https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8049/ If UK leaves the Council of Europe and the convention, you lose an extra level of appeal.

They have no idea about what the ECHR is doing, I.e. they don't know that most cases related to UK were about defending UK citizen against abuses by the administration (I.e. by the bureaucrats and technocrats Brexiters tend to hate). They just a Pavlovian reaction whenever they see the word "European".

Sore loser, liar, cheat and crook,! The perfect pedigree! ????

All ready to overturn elections if needed

Well, you are assuming that the GOP would agree to limit opportunities to contest elections results when they don't like them.

It's not true that western media do not report about it. I have seen several articles explaining how increased energy prices were helping Russia's economy.

While I often desagree with you, I acknowledge you may have a point. Trump can play the "dumb" card. And he has a credible past record about it. Practically, we know it is B.S., but technically there is no absolute proof that he did not promote the Big Lie because he is a moron. That may work for him, or not.

If they don't all believe it, they should! "Violent far-right attacks and plots remained the most frequent type of domestic terrorism in 2021...... ....Most violent far-right perpetrators were motivated by white supremacist or anti-government sentiments, and they committed most of the fatal attacks in 2021. Of the 30 fatalities in 2021, 28 resulted from far-right terrorist attacks. White supremacists killed 13 people, a violent misogynist killed 8, anti-government extremists killed 4, and an anti-vaccination perpetrator killed 3" https://www.csis.org/analysis/pushed-extremes-domestic-terrorism-amid-polarization-and-protest

I would also suggest a psychological explanation. Big guns may be a substitute of.. ahem, you know what I mean....????

Sadly, the good old conservative British traditions are falling apart....???? "The Council of Europe set to work creating a human rights convention. Again, Churchill was an advocate; he proclaimed: “In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.” That ‘Charter of Human Rights’ of which Churchill spoke was named the European Convention on Human Rights." https://eachother.org.uk/wrote-european-convention-human-rights/

We know you don't care to provide evidence! Lol!