placeholder

So why has she begun paying taxes after her non-dom claim was exposed?

Maternal mRNA COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with lower risks of poor neonatal outcomes, including neonatal death, according to a population-based retrospective cohort study from Canada. Compared with infants who were not exposed to the COVID vaccine, those who were exposed to one or more doses in utero had lower risks of: Severe neonatal morbidity: 7.3% vs 8.3% (adjusted risk ratio RR [aRR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.83-0.90) Neonatal death: 0.09% vs 0.16% (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.65) Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission: 11.4% vs 13.1% (aRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.83-0.89) https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/106951

So after her non-domicile status was reported, she proudly abandoned it?

And before that, Labor won 3 in a row (without needing to be in a coalition.) By your logic, the Conservatives should never have regained power in the first place.

You're the party who brought up the issue of Ellis' reliability.

You should send this advice to the prosecution. Of course, it may be that Ellis has documents and such that could strengthen the prosecution's cases against other defendants. You might want to point that out to them as well.

As the article notes, from 2014 to 2020 oil and gas production increased and prices dropped because of fracking. Among other consequences of that was that several gas frackers, including Chesapeake, the biggest one, went bankrupt because of overproduction and the resulting low prices. Banks and shareholders have since pushed for discipline in the fossil fuel industry so that they don't chase after volume at the expense of profitability.

What's really hysterically funny is that you denounce Israel for inflicting massive casualties on Palestinian civilians but you have no problem with Russia doing the same to Ukrainian civilians.

A further note on this. Not only has it been established that Chesebro had money, but the fact is that his case had fallen apart. 1)He lost his bid to exclude as evidence his memos 2) His claim that there was no proof of his intent ran afoul of Georgia law and he was overwhelmingly likely to lose there. 3)He wanted to call experts to support his bizarre legal theories. Determining the validity of a theory is what judges are for. Experts are there to testify re the facts. 4)His only remaining hope was to discredit the witnesses against him. But since his memos are very incriminating, that would be useless. Why Chesebro cut a deal and what it means for Trump https://archive.ph/GaWop#selection-413.0-417.51 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/23/chesebro-trial-defenses/

That won't do him any good if he's convicted under Georgia Law.

9 Republicans are running for House speaker. Only 2 of them voted to certify the 2020 election After House Republicans dropped Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, as the nominee for House speaker Friday, nine candidates threw their hat in the ring for the top spot. But only two of those lawmakers voted to certify the 2020 election, raising questions among some Republicans about where they'll lend their support in the speaker battle. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/10/23/2-house-speaker-candidates-republicna-certify-2020-election/71286754007/

Oddly enough, many Gazans don't want to flee. For some unfathomable reason, they believe that once Israelis invade, they won't be allowed to return to their homes. Hmmmm....whatever could make them think that? Palestinians Are Refusing to Flee Israeli Bombing in Gaza. ‘If I Die, I Die.’ Many families won’t leave their homes in the north, fearing a repeat of the mass displacement 75 years ago “I don’t care anymore,” said Basil Abu Sada, a 35-year-old software engineer whose great-grandfather first brought the family to Jabalia. He worries that if they leave, they won’t find food or shelter—or ever be able to return. “If I die, I die.” Hundreds of thousands of other Palestinians are refusing to leave the northern Gaza Strip, which the Israeli military is bombing in advance of an expected ground offensive. https://archive.ph/ORrQW https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/palestinians-gaza-israel-bombing-d838b23d

Deflecting much? Or do you agree with Jingthing that this is about self-hating Jews?

A gotcha. You got me there. So many threads with similar themes I mixed them up. That said, you have any actual objection to my comment that "invocation of Nazis is over the top"?

I was replying to this: You don't think that's a trifle simplistic?

Well, by hiding among their own people, they certainly have to accept a lot of responsibility. But, as I've pointed out before, toxic conditions give rise to toxic behavior. Also, it's a common feature of asymmetric warfare for the side with less resources to hide among its own people. That doesn't make it right. Anyway, I was replying to an obviously ridiculouos characterization.

So, to your way of thinking, justice is a zero sum game. If one party obtains it, that means the other party has been wronged.

What was particularly horrific was all those Hamas babies who committed these atrocities. They need more than a good spanking. Bombs away!

I don't see how a sentence composed in the third person can be understood to be taken as that of a spokesman.

"We won't forget the Blair years of lies, warmongering and destabilizing the middle east any time soon." "We"? Really. Who appointed you spokesman for the British electorate. And it's dubious that an election is going to be decided on a issue of foreign affairs. Voters pay much more attention to issues concerning the economy and health care.

So that's what taking an historical perspective on this is - an excuse. Hmmmm...

Addressing the issue of why allegedly bad choices are made does not directly relate to your post? Hmmm....

You blame the Palestinians for making allegedly unwise choices. I pointed out even if their choices are unwise, toxic conditions resulting from oppression don't make for cool rational thinking or decent leadership. I think in this case your accusation of hijacking means you have no answer for my very relevant reply. Just because a conversation takes a turn you don't like, that doesn't make it hijacking.

I can remember when your fellow right wingers were also claiming that the huge shift in the local elections didn't signify anything either.

Deflecting much? Why even raise the election issue. I've seen very little, if anything in this thread about the effect of Powell's testimony on Trump's chances of reelection. Since you didn't even quote someone in your comment to that effect, I guess you're having trouble find evidence to support your assertion. Also, Powell was present at meetings with the President. It seems hard to believe that prosecutors would let her off the hook if all she had to offer was uncorroboratable testimony. She is also required to produce relevant documents. And we aren't just discussing Powell anymore, are we? There's now a Chesebro in the mix as well.