GroveHillWanderer

See my post immediately above yours. No law enforcement agency or manual lists these as MS13 symbols.

You don't even understand the terminology do you? "Afrikaner" refers to the descendants of the original Dutch colonists in South Africa. There are no black Afrikaners, the term is used exclusively for white people.

Of course there's something to contest it - multiple experts on gang affiliations and tattoos have pointed out that these are not known to be symbols associated with MS13. Even US law enforcement does not list these symbols as being MS13-related. As stated in the article below: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-posts-image-kilmar-abrego-175852020.html

No, he didn't say the tattoos were photoshopped, he said the characters "M S 1 3" shown above the tattoos in the photo Trump had shown, were photoshopped and that the meaning of the actual tattoos, the mariajuana leaf, smiley face, cross and skull were open to interpretation.

Here's the actual photo, being held up by Trump. As the article linked to below points out: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-posts-image-kilmar-abrego-175852020.html

But only if they're the right sort of people, of course. South Africa reels over Trump's offer of refugee status to white Afrikaners https://www.npr.org/2025/04/08/nx-s1-5352893/south-africa-reels-over-trumps-offer-of-refugee-status-to-white-afrikaners

Trouble with that argument is that he wasn't deported for entering the US illegally, he was deported for being an alien enemy, and under the terms of the Alien Enemies Act (1798). If he isn't a member a dangerous gang, then he isn't subject to the terms of that act and was therefore illegally deported under its terms. (There's a viewpoint that even if he were a gang member, he still wouldn't be subject to the AEA but that's a different argument). If the government wants to eventually deport him for a different, legitimate reason they're perfectly free to do so, as the courts have pointed out.

Trump now saying that he could have Abrego Garcia returned to the US, he just doesn't want to (in defiance of court orders, including from the SCOTUS). Trump Says He Could Free Abrego Garcia From El Salvador, but Won’t https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-deported.html So it turns out (surprise, surprise) that when he and other members of his administration kept saying that they couldn't do anything to have him returned, they were being "economical with the truth."

Why do you keep repeating this ridiculous argument? I think I've called you out on it several times already. The felonies (34 of them, actually) were for falsifying business records in the first degree. They were felonies, not misdemeanors and none of them had expired (if they had, the case would have been dismissed on the first day). The underlying crime, as specified in the AP article below, was a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments to a porn star. Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0

This wouldn't have applied to you - it's only for numbers registered since January 1, 2022, at least according to the OP.

I was given the same advice in regard to animals running in front of the car, by my BSM driving instructor when I was learning to drive,

You mean they actually lie more often than the Russians do, in relation to this conflict? That would take some doing.

So you only believe things when they're confirmed by Russia? That seems a somewhat foolish approach to take, given that they've lied over and over again about this conflict. Remember for instance when they kept saying that they weren't going to invade Ukraine, right up until they actually did? Anyway, the Ukrainians provided proof of North Korean involvement (pictures of captured soldiers and their ID documents) months ago. Ukraine shares first pictures of North Korean soldiers captured fighting for Russia https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/ukraine-shares-first-pictures-of-north-korean-soldiers-captured-fighting-for-russia/undal6o3l

I said, "up to" those figures, depending on serotype. Which is accurate. The figures for DENV4 in seronegative individuals could not be determined but based on the figures for their seropositive counterparts, would almost certainly be less than 88% for VCD and less than 100% for VCD requiring hospitalisation.

Vaccination means the introduction into the human body of "a substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen." (OED definition). The rabies vaccine fully meets that definition, so it's a vaccine whether you like it or not. Especially since it isn't given only as post-exposure prophylaxis, it can also be given in advance of exposure. And 17 doses by the age of 6 months? In which country? Not in the UK and I doubt if that's the case in any other country either. As per the NHS vaccination schedule given below, a child would receive a total of 8 vaccine doses covering 9 diseases, by that age. United Kingdom's NHS Vaccination Schedule for children under 1 year https://www.nurofen.co.uk/children/articles/what-is-the-baby-vaccination-schedule-in-the-uk/

What's obvious is that from the very beginning and up until the present day, the D notice system has only ever been allowed to be used for matters regarding National Defence and Security. The other thing to bear in mind is that D notices are purely voluntary and have no legal authority. So if the government had tried to use a D notice for something it is clearly not entitled to, the editor or publisher would simply ignore it, knowing there's nothing that could happen to them. Again, from the DSMA website:

Sorry, but I'm having difficulty with that story. D notices (known nowadays as DSMA-Notices) are described on the government's official DSMA website as follows: The DSMA Notice System https://www.dsma.uk/about/ Based on the information I can find on that website, they are not now, nor have they ever have been, used for stories about medical matters.

The efficacy rates given in the WHO position paper I linked to earlier listed the figures for both seropositive and seronegative individuals, and for both infection and hospitalisation, for all four serotypes. Those figures are as follows (VCD stands for virologically-confirmed Dengue): So depending on which serotype you're taking about, the vaccine is up to 88% effective against infection and up to 100% effective against hospitalisation, in seronegative individuals.

I am a Catholic and I don't think it's a major insult to me or others of my faith. Sky's coverage of the Pope's funeral will go on for literally hours. As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly understandable (and acceptable) that it would be interrupted from time to time for breaking news bulletins.

Apparently, it is still true.

True, but there's no a priori reason for supposing that the vaccine will not work, or will have any significantly different safety profile in people over 60, as far as I'm aware.

How does it do that? As they have stated (and as is indisputably true) that have no power to do so. And if they did put pressure on sovereign nations, why did so many implement lockdowns when the WHO said, "we'd rather not do it."?

The article did not accuse Trump of any of those things. If it did, you might have a point - but it doesn't. It doesn't even compare Trump to Hitler directly, it just says (as clearly stated in the OP) that he is using an American version of Hitler's 'stabbed-in-the-back' lie.

The article quite clearly states what he was supposed to have done wrong. As it says, he was, "accused of involvement in a fatal shooting."

And that's why the WHO does not make such decisions, as is pointed out very clearly in the article, where the WHO is quoted as follows: As for "requiring nations to comply with WHO-recommended lockdowns and other emergency measures," that is also nonsense. Once again, as they have unequivocally stated, they do not have that power and if you want to take COVID as the example, they didn't do that anyway. In fact, if anything, the WHO advised against lockdowns (though again, with no power of compunction). Here is the WHO spokesman on the topic of lockdowns in October, 2020. WHO Warning About Covid-19 Coronavirus Lockdowns Is Taken Out Of Context https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/