stevenl

Russian collusion with the Trump campaign has been proven, transparency from trump and his campaign missing Clinton has been investigated time and time again, by republican investigators, nothing there. Agree, it depends which side of the political divide the person accused of corruption is on to determine how it is treated.

Yes, very democratic, a landslide majority with 43 percent of the vote.

For more information on his sympathies, see eg https://www.biography.com/news/edward-viii-wallis-simpson-nazi-sympathizers-hitler

From https://www.avast.com/c-netiquette Research thoroughly before making factual claims online. Some quick googling and linking to source websites builds trust with others.

Funny question for an internet forum. Maybe next time think it through?

When people make claims, factual claims, they should be able to substantiate. The argument should not be: I gave a number, check on Google.

I also believe a monarchy is better than any alternative and probably not more expensive as well. What I don't like is posts and links claiming the opposite being put down as drivel or similar without a real explanation.

Not on your part.

That was the post the question relates to. Your answer has nothing to do with the question posed.

So no explanation forthcoming, a pity.

Sounds good, excellent. Can you expend on that with a link from your source and, since you claimed the earlier link to be drivel, the corrections on the drivel?

Looking forward to your corrections of the mentioned article.

In addition, this isn't about people who were adhering to the scientific recommendationns making an occasional mistake. I stuck to the recommendations, still do, but I'm sure if there are cameras 24/7 present the occasional mistake would have been noticed. This is about people, imo idiots, who refused to adhere and others who were in a position of responsibility and refused to issue policies based on the scientific evidence, often publicly questioning the evidence.

Strange that the nation wide price hike wasn't applied to you.

Looking forward to your reply to this. Further from the report: "Several national leaders made highly irresponsible statements in the first few months of the outbreak, neglecting scientific evidence and needlessly risking lives with a view to keeping the economy open. The footnotes at the end of the paragraph above link to articles that specifically cite former President Trump of the U.S. (multiple cites), President Bolsonaro of Brazil, and President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico. AND "In the United States, the political far-right has promoted anti-science rhetoric, as shown by their opposition to COVID-19 vaccines and anti-COVID-19 prevention measures. Anti-science rhetoric and disinformation about COVID-19 are now promoted by several elected members of the US Congress,and are often disseminated by cable television news channels and podcasts."

Electricity costs have gone up. On my previous bill the charge was 4.0 per unit, this time up to 4.9. That is for payment directly to PEA, total invoice recalculated to costs per unit.

They underline my point and show that I am not speaking for myself.

Very consistent in supporting (would be) dictators, I give you that.

Thanks for the explanation, my question was more 'why this law'. Imo stupid and doesn't seem to make any sense. Agree with you it looks like the judge applied common sense.

I asked a question to another poster who failed to explain why the additional monetary penalty. I appreciate the answer, but you don't explain as well.

Apparently it was Mark Meadows who told the lawyer there were no documents present.

Thanks for admitting you changed the meaning of my words. To illustrate my point, see e.g. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/whats-wrong-with-britain-lets-start-with-the-monarchy/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/abolish-the-monarchy-child/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/opinion/letters/queen-elizabeth-britain-monarchy.html https://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/30/world/europe/uk-jubilee-republicans/index.html And there's many more.

So why the payment to the family?

You would have thought so you don't know. But your claim means the queen dies and the crown inherits. Do you see the flaw in your reasoning?

Thanks. So sanctions like withholding moneys should will them to withdraw.