GroveHillWanderer

If that's your take on this, then I would have to submit that again, you haven't really understood what is being talked about. This research is about creating a vaccine - nothing more, nothing less. Now, it is a vaccine based on a slightly different kind of approach than previous vaccines but it still relies on taking an antigen from an actual virus and exposing your body to it in order to evoke an immune response. You still seem to be talking as if this will somehow cause certain viruses to cease to exist. It won't. This is something which will inhibit a virus from replicating once it gets inside a human body, just as other vaccines do, but (according to the researchers) in a more efficient and hopefully more durable manner.

Did you read the attached article? This would not pre-emptively eliminate viruses. It would however (if it pans out) make a person's immune system more able to fight off a virus. Neither is what is being talked about here, an antiviral medicine.

True, however this is not mRNA vaccine technology. It is RNAi technology - a totally different proposition.

You're falling for the mis-statement in the headline. He has not renounced British residency. That's not actually a thing. All he has done, is state on some kind of housing form that his primary country of residence is the US - which even the casual observer could see that it plainly is. For instance, I used to live in France at one time. If asked what my normal country of residence was at that time, I would always say it was France. It didn't mean I had "renounced" anything to do with the UK. You can become non-resident for tax purposes in the UK, but that's something you have to sort out directly with HMRC not just by putting on some miscellaneous form what your current country of residence is. Tax if you leave the UK to live abroad

As the Yahoo article that @Danderman123linked to says: Don't forget that even Project Veritas, the far right-wing outlet that originally received the diary, wouldn't publish it because it couldn't be confirmed.

Really? And who would those "some" be?

Except that those two things are not mutually exclusive. According to an analysis in Time Magazine of where the money actually goes, around 90% of the money for Ukraine aid is spent in the US (and creates thousands of US jobs). Why the U.S. Has the Most to Gain From Supporting Ukraine

Well, it's currently under review by a judge, so I guess we'll see. Prince Harry visa court case explained as US visa application given to judge

No need to wait until 2027. First electric car equipped with solid-state batteries goes on sale

Yes - a properly conducted opinion poll with a random sample of 1,000 people gives a 95% chance of a result that reflects the opinion of the entire US population, with a 3% margin of error. See article from the Scientific American, below. How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error? Also, to quote an old joke that is popular with survey researchers: "If you don't believe in the accuracy of random sampling, next time you have a blood test, ask the doctor to take it all."

Not if they spoke English and the staff were not adept at recognizing what kind of English accent they were speaking with.

If by "demeaning treatment" Morgan means that Trump was subject to some kind of unusually harsh words from the judge then he obviously doesn't understand NY state court procedures. Trump received the same exact admonitions from the judge (known as Parker warnings) that every criminal defendant in a NY courtroom receives.

Based on what the Immigration website indicates, it seems you can do it by post in any location in the country.

According to the Immigration website. Notification of staying in the Kingdom over 90 Days

My answer would be, "None of the above." I don't think you can put a specific time frame on when Israel will use their nuclear weapons but I don't think you can say they would never use them, either.

According to the article below, there was a fire in Rattanaburi Central Market starting at 10:15 pm yesterday that was exacerbated by strong winds. Surin Rattanaburi Market Fire

Although no US service personnel were killed, that may have been more due to luck than judgement. 110 of them suffered "traumatic brain injury" and while most were able to return to duty fairly quickly, the long term prognosis for the 27 that had to be medevacked to the US was unclear at the time. However the whole point is that the idea that the Iranians would never have dared to launch a missile attack in retaliation for an attack on them when Trump was President is totally and demonstrably false.

If you read that whole Hua Hin Today article and still think the unfortunate victim deserves to be deported then it would appear you have a problem with English language comprehension.

So I guess I must have imagined that time when Iran launched the biggest ballistic missile attack ever experienced by US forces, during Trump's presidency in January 2020. Video shows 2020 Iranian missile attack on US forces at Iraqi base https://youtu.be/lGP7hZQuTL0?si=aotk1z7PzKUxzifL

Why must there be? By all accounts, the attacker was wandering around for hours in a confused and aggressive state, and had also attacked other people. We can't know for sure yet, but it does rather sound as if he may have been just attacking people at random.

I don't know about proving it, but all the signs seem to indicate that. As the article says, witnesses and officials (who probably know more about it that we do) both describe it as unprovoked, the full article says the German had also attacked other people and from the following it sounds as if the attacker was perhaps suffering some kind of "episode."

I'm just wondering, what part of the following admonition in the OP, did you not understand? "PLEASE keep it on topic, as plenty of threads to debate ICE vs EV & EV vs Petrol, Eco vs dirty, source of energy for CS ... bla bla bla ... THANK YOU Thread is about how to use, your experience, good or bad. Reviews of CS you used."

Once again, there are multiple witnesses, there are audio tapes, emails, text messages and video clips (Giuliani) that all tend to indicate the payments were made in furtherance of his campaign. And if the jurors accept that as being the case then it may not be all good - for Trump at least. Though it might well be good for the prosecution.

I think this could well be right. One thing that has me really intrigued is that Hope Hicks is on the prosecution's witness list. Nobody seems to know what she's going to say. Various pundits, including people who worked with her in the Trump administration say she was fiercely loyal to Trump and is unlikely to say anything that might harm him. However if that's the case then you have to wonder why the prosecution plans to call her. Surely you wouldn't call a witness if you know they're not going to say anything that will help you to convict the person you're trying to prosecute? In this regard, it's worth noting that last year, Hicks met for several hours with prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney's office, according to NBC News. So maybe the prosecution knows something about her testimony that the pundits don't? If that's the case, and she does spill the beans about what she knows, that could turn out to be quite a bombshell.

Yes, we all know that Cohen was guilty of multiple counts. The point you seem to keep missing is that if he was guilty of campaign finance violations for making the payments, then so is the person who instructed him to make the payments. (Hint: it was Trump).