Elerond

I mean regardless how reasonable it is to ask money for the medicine it is still always question give us money or die/suffer, which just creates resentment regardless of how well you justify it

They have not done nothing to me (except money), my statement was more general, as when you make profit on life saving drugs and vaccinations especially during global pandemic you aren't making people like you even if you are producing thing that saves them, because people feel that you are profiting on their need. And optics don't get better when pharma companies get public money and protection from litigation in case they have screwed with their supposed cure. I mean it is just business where you make people hate you and bigger the crisis more people will resent you for making profit on people's lives

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/04/covid-vaccines-offer-chance-for-big-pharma-to-improve-its-image Big Pharma may hope that vaccines make them more liked but at end of the day they usually just can't help themselves and they probably end in worst position than where they started.

Funny thing is that all the EU members are free to give medicines and vaccinations emergency approval instead of waiting EMA's approval, but as far all the members states have decided not to do so and just blame EU that their citizens need to wait vaccination. So Hannock may be right that UK's quick approval was because of Brexit, not because it made bureaucracy faster but that they weren't able to use EU as excuse for the wait and buckled under pressure to approve the vaccine even if they can't say its safe with 100% certainty.

In my understanding you cannot do that in USA either. According to that article police didn't know who had hurt the child when they charged said woman of lying them. And I don't think person is providing alibi when they hide existence of person in question from police. As woman brought child to hospital where doctors called police because child injures show that they were caused by another human. Then woman in question tells police that child has been with her whole time and she doesn't know how child has sustained the injuries. Then during investigation police finds out that child had been in care of someone else than woman in question for sometime, which lead police to charge her for lying to them, even though they had at that time determined who had hurt the child. Flynn case isn't really that different, even if its more political https://apnews.com/article/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3

Suspect of crime can't be arrested or charged for lying to police about crime they have accused of committing But if I am asked did Zoraptor stole a car and say 'no' , when I know that you have stolen the car in question I will commit crime even if I lie because I paid Zoraptor to stole the car in question. EDIT: It seems that also in New Zealand it is crime to lie to police https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/93962601/woman-admits-making-false-statement-to-police http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328799.html

"And if by your own words he was lying to avoid charges" It was comment to this claim that I have never made You were claiming that FBI were investigating Flynn because of some crime they suspected him to have committed and your evidence was that FBI was investigating him, which is why I pointed out that FBI investigates all the members of the government, because that is their job. I see that you have hard time to come up with actual arguments, but you could at least be honest about it

Yeah Federal Bureau of Investigation 's job is to investigate things. Their job is also investigate backgrounds of all the members of government in order to ensure that there is no surprises there that could cause problems for the nation suspect of what? avoid what chargers? again suspect of what? and what charges? They investigated if Russia had something over Flynn, as he had done opposite to what he told VP to have done. But giving false information to VP in briefing is not crime, which is why Flynn was only forced to resign. Flynn himself pleaded guilty of lying to FBI in court, you don't need to take my word, just his own words.

It is not really, issue is same knowingly giving false statements to officials. Flynn was not actually accused or suspected of crime when he was interviewed by FBI, he was interviewed because he had told Vice President Pence different account of what he had talked with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak than were in transcripts of the Flynn's call with Kislyak. Later on Flynn plead guilty to purposefully lying FBI during that interview when in order to avoid charges of illegally receiving money from foreign power. Pleading fifth comes to play when court or investigation panel compels person to give testimony and person knows that said testimony would incriminate them, either forcing them lie under oath or revealing crime that they have committed. People who plead fifth aren't usually those who have been accused of crime, but people who have called to give witness or other testimony in the case and case may not even be a criminal case per se.

Giving false testimony is crime in most of the countries and not just for police but also for banks etc. organizations when you swear that information that you have given is truth for example when you apply for bank account, loan or even phone subscription etc. You don't need to plead the 5th, 5th protections means that FBI, police or any official has no right to torture you or threaten you with prison or any other punishment if you don't give testimony that incriminates you.

5th amendment gives protection against officials compelling you to give answers that would incriminate you, but purposefully lying to officials when you have vowed to tell truth is a crime

Lying to FBI is only crime in US, as other countries don't recognize FBI's jurisdiction over their citizens

That isn't very accurate definition of head of state, considering how big sunk of head is states in world are just figure heads, like European monarchs. Especially Queen Elizabeth who is head of state also in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and United Kingdom without having position in their governments. Also in many countries where president is official head of state, president does not have any or minor governmental power like for example Germany, Finland, Albanian, Armenia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominica, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malta, Moldova, Nepal, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine and Vanuatu. Countries where head of state has major governmental powers are in minority in number, but not necessarily in influence they hold in world

Twitter suppressing loved leader's speech

Risk of new vaccines depend more how well its working method is know, when we are speaking 5-10 years approval times. Like for example two new flu vaccines are developed on markets each year, because how fast influenza viruses are changing and they are approved without long period testing because they are based on well known methods.

But if there are for example miss counting because of tabulation machine for example, that should effect all elections not only presidential race

Funnily AOC has national level visibility and power to drive her issues through mainly because of people who oppose her

Has any candidate in those elections disputed results? Because they should if there has been clear voter fraud in their are or thousands votes are given to wrong candidate

I find it interesting that local, senate and house elections are accepted without law suits, even though votes on them are casted with same ballots that are disputed in presidential race. It is like only parts of ballots are fake.

Number of votes that move from one party to another in recount have been max ~300 votes in past and there is no indication that this time would be different. But same thing would happen as would had if Clinton had won after recount, winner of election would change. But change for that happening when there needs to be multiple over 10k vote changes is smaller than winning 10 times in row in lottery, because counting systems that states use are very reliable and changes happen usually only in ballots that have been counted by hand for some reason or another.

Not Gromnir, but ruling has little impact, as ballots that arrived after election day 8 PM were already separated from others and have not been included in current tally and USPS reported that they had processed less than 5k of those ballots, so as things currently stand they don't impact outcome of PA's result regardless of decision if they should or should not included in final result. Ruling will only move day when PA is able to give final count.

In political environment where people vote party over policies, fifth of the voting population heavily favors opposite party and said fifth will continue to vote for next 60-70 years. So it looks like quite advantage for democrats in at least couple next elections until they again piss of their voters

Votes by young people (18-29, who made 17% of total votes with 53% participation) predict some problems for republicans in future

Macro has advocated tougher immigration policies whole time he has been president Last year he speak against France taking refugees and passed measures to make immigration to France more difficult seek baring refugees accessing medical care. Also he brought up immigration to EU multiple times in EU's meetings in seeking to get common immigration policy in EU and looking ways to prevent immigrates coming from Africa. 2018 his government passed law to decrease asylum processing time to 90 days and doubling time detention time in asylum cases from 45 days to 90 days. 2017 Macron blamed France poor economy on France refugee policy and so on. I am not sure why people think that Macron is some how pro refugee / immigrant or even liberal in American political spectrum sense. He is liberal only when he is compared to Marine Le Pen and co, but there is reason why people in France have protested against Macron from get-go after they wake up from their ecstasy that Le Pen didn't won the election and old parties were given finger.