candide

What I meant is that yellow shirts and their masters never cared about other people than Thaksin following laws or not, and certainly not themselves. Thaksin was a crook, but not more than the others. The real reason why he was ousted was that he was threatening the power of the dominant clique (led by someone who's name started with the letter P. As you've been there for some time, you know who I mean). It is demonstrated again by the fact that, now that he is not a threat any more to the dominant powers, he is fully accepted

Lol! As if the yellow shirts and their masters ever cared about following laws.

Some commenters also said that Putin's decision has been triggered by the Jan.6 events. He would have assessed that the USA was divided and weakened by this insurrection, and would not be able to unite against him.

It's an interesting theoretical debate, but that's not relevant in this case. The point is that specific claims have been for specific precincts. These specific claims have been debunked! There have been checks, recounts, audits, etc... Not to mention the ridiculous character of some of the claims, such as Republican supervisors conspiring with Dominion, China and Venezuela in order to help Biden

That's also an issue. Even with Trump jailed, the swamp behind him will not vanish.

Be careful about what you wish. Rape drugs can also be convenient rob drugs.

They always fought for elections, so they fought for democracy. Unlike the other side (yellow) they never fought against elections. Actually, there would be no red shirts if the yellow shirts did not attack democracy.

Go go Dark Brandon against the big pharma swamp! The price of Insulin in the U.S. is scandalous! 8 times the price in other countries such as Canada!

Because, as before with the Irak war, they believe the B.S. served to them.

Additional comment. I just checked and there was much more support by Republicans than by Democrats. Since the start of the war, there has been a wide partisan gap on the question of using force in Iraq. In March 2003, with major combat operations ongoing, the gap was substantial: 93% of Republicans supported the decision to use force, compared with 66% of independents and 59% of Democrats. This gap persisted through the first year of the year. Across all surveys conducted in 2003, 90% of Republicans backed the decision to use force, compared with 66% of independents and 50% of Democrats. Over the ensuing years, support for the war has plummeted among independents and Democrats plummeted, while Republicans have remained largely supportive. In surveys conducted in 2008 — the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency — just 17% of Democrats said it was the right decision to take military action in Iraq, compared with 73% of Republicans. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2011/11/23/views-of-the-iraq-war/

Multiple posting

It makes no sense to compare the Ukraine war with the Irak war. As to MAGA fans, there's no much change. They have not drawn lessons from the Irak war scam, and are still ready to believe any B.S. they are fed with.

Multiple posting

Multiple posting

I did not think about it It makes sense.

Of course, most people bought it then, including the current MAGAs who are old enough. I just find funny to read the same guys who enthusiasticly supported the Irak war now complaining about Bush and others not having been prosecuted, as an argument.

What's not allowed? You probably won't find any posters who are sympathetic about it. It's a shame Bush and Cheney have not been prosecuted for that. And It's rich coming from a right-wing poster, as the current MAGA fans were all waving the American flag and cheering this war.

Practically, it's the opposite happening. In districts with a significant number of families originating from immigration (mainly Muslims), parents tend to leave public schools because there are too many kids of foreign origin, and send their kids to private schools. It's a big problem as it doesn't help integration.

In particular as it is really a "sacred" issue for Sikhs. For Muslims, it's not absolutely mandatory.

There has been a long debate about the Sikh turban and the "Conseil d'Etat" estimated that even the under-turban should be considered as conspicuous. Practically, it's true that it mainly affects Muslims as they are the only ones imposing to wear conspicuous signs (on girls only, which is another issue). The spirit of the law can be easily examplified: when you look at kids playing in the schoolyard, you cannot distinguish one religion from the others.

The Sikh turban is certainly not allowed in public schools. As to religions signs, the law only prohibits conspicuous (ostensible) signs. So small jewel crosses are allowed, same as small Muslim or Jewish religious signs ( they are usually weared under garments).

There's no Islam bashing. It's the same for other religions. No Kippa, no big cross weared above clothes, etc... As I explained in a previous post, it's an adaptation of a rule established long before Muslims settled in France. Actually, the whole French secular doctrine has been established against the dominance of the Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting that terrorists' will should dictate or influence public policies of a democratic and secular country?

She said the rioters were not loyal to the constitution: fact, not opinion She said they did it because of loyalty to Trump: fact, not opinion. She added that Trump was free: fact, not opinion. Of course, for Trumpers, stating facts is being biased.....

What was inaccurate in what she said?