placeholder

Here are a couple: Partisan Gerrymandering Has Benefited the GOP, Analysis Shows An Associated Press analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones, indicating that gerrymandering has benefited the GOP. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-gop-analysis-shows-n776436 GOP gerrymandering creates uphill fight for Dems in the House Republican strategists spent years developing a plan to take advantage of the 2010 census, first by winning state legislatures and then redrawing House districts to tilt the playing field in their favor. Their success was unprecedented. In states like Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina, Republicans were able to shape congressional maps to pack as many Democratic voters as possible into the fewest House districts. The practice is called gerrymandering, and it left fertile ground elsewhere in each state to spread Republican voters among more districts, increasing the GOP’s chances of winning more seats. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-gerrymandering-creates-uphill-fight-dems-house

You claimed that the increase was due to the pandemic even though usage of food banks had been increasing since 2008 every year. The only way that claim of yours makes any sense is if you meant that food bank usage would either have held steady or declined had covid not occurred. So why would the trend have reversed?

Maybe the Socratic method only works on Greeks. To reconcile your assertion that the increase in food bank usage only began after the onset of the pandemic with the evidence from the graph I presented, would mean that the pandemic began in 2008 since food bank usage increased every year from that date until 2021-2022.

So the pandemic began when exactly? https://www.statista.com/statistics/382695/uk-foodbank-users/

But the claims of bias are used as a reason for people not to trust the guardian even when it's reporting the facts.

She said regulators. Not politicians. You just made the clichéd jump from regulators to politicians. Pavlovian much?

With more worthless anecdotes?

Has Phelps accused politicians of exerting this control even if what she claims is true? And what relevance does that have to all the other developed nations of the world and their reports?

But the bias isn't the important thing. On the basis of fact reporting and analysis, they were judged to be reliable. So when someone claims the guardian is lying about the facts, it's pretty like that they are right wing cranks.

Are you asserting that the scientists and statisticians working for the national public health services in the developed economies of the world are creating false data and/or coming up with false conclusions at the behest of politicians? You really want to go with that?

You think that loons are underrepresented in the Republican Party? Really?

Ad Fontes Media rates The Guardian in the Skews Left category of bias and as Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability. Did you miss the part about Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability? Guardian Reliability: 43.42 Bias: -8.39 Fox News Reliability: 35.65 Bias: 13.50 https://adfontesmedia.com/fox-news-bias-and-reliability/ Fox is less reliable and more biased.

I'm not sure what you mean by numerous, but it's indisputable you've made posts with no links and persisted in defending them without invoking objectively confirmable links to defend them.

If Australia was the only country reporting data, then the point you are making might have some significance. But it's not. So, unless Australians are a biologically distinct subspecies, this line of speculation is utterly irrelevant.

But your alleged experiences have zero probative value. Even if your experiences are scrupulously accurate, still no probative value. It's not like there's a lack of objectively confirmable evidence out there. Instead you prefer to make it personal.

Well, here's a notice about lorry drivers needing covid tests. But it's for all lorry drivers, not just those from the UK. So since all drivers are required to get a test, the UK is not suffering any more of a burden than any other country's drivers. https://trans.info/en/covid-tests-for-hgv-drivers-border-requirements-and-test-centres-in-europe-223742

And if they were polled again, given Musk's lies about banning, they should say the same.

Which explains the vacuity of comments such as yours above.

And what is there in OzSage or Dr. Phelps' stances that say the risk of vaccine injury outweighs the risk of getting vaccincated? They have both stated that they are for stricter measures in addition to vaccination.

Or, to put it another way: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

How long did it take you to come up with that one? A truly astonishing piece of prose.

Wow, that's even more believable. Which I didn't think was possible. You send links to articles you haven't read but are counting on to back up the points you raise? Who could doubt that? And you've been doing that all along, have you?

Apart from common decency, which, to judge from this sentence, is a condition that you apparently you are not afflicted with, pandemics can take a big toll on the economy and affect access to medical care.

What did it tell you that Musk didn't pursue the course you recommended? Possibly that he didn't have a case and advice such as yours was useless?

Very impressive display. A hypothesis has been proposed amona climatologists that ascribes the divagations of the polar vortex to the decreasing temperature differential between the arctic regions and further south. And all you've got is "Weather patterns caused by the movement of the Jet streams have nothing to do with Global warming." It's undeniable that the polar regions are warming faster than elsewhere on the planet. So please share with us why this temperature differential is irrelevant. As for single events to climate change, I don't know about "climate change idiots" although perhaps that's a fair term for deniers of human-caused climate change although "ignoramuses" might be a better term, but climatologists don't ascribe any one event to climate change. What they do note are trends such as increasing frequency or increasing severity or both that correlate with the rise of greenhouse gases. Can you share with us your data that shows no such trends and correlations exist? I await your exposition with eagerness and interest.