Interesting but not convincing!

That a few Democratic candidates have complained about the way Republican controlled administrations have suppressed, in their eyes, the opportunities for minorities to vote is one thing.

Such complaints have been made for decades and are the subject of disagreement between the parties. The Dems might complain, but they have never tried to stay in power because of their complaints.

It is a million miles away from a POTUS refusing to accept a result and making completely baseless, and discredited claims, about an election being stolen.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That you respond in that way actually says quite a lot!

You post a comment which tries to suggest that the FBI is politically biased and protecting the powerful, whilst targeting those involved in the Trump inspired Jan 6th assault on democracy.

I respond in a calm, reasoned and unaggressive way to suggest why this is probably untrue.

So rather than try to justify and defend your original assertions you revert to type and direct your response at me personally, and suggest that as what you want to say would be so insulting that it might get you banned, you won't say anything. Except you have! Based on all you have said in the past, and the fact that you are still here, the conclusion must be that what you want to say is really extreme!

I guess most can imagine what that might be, based on the stupid, and highly offensive, innuendos you have used before. I certainly can.

The bottom line is that this provides further confirmation, if any is actually needed, of where your ideas come from. Attacks on the FBI of this kind are one of the current favourites of the US far right and MAGA mob. Who benefits most from trying to sow doubt and a lack of trust in the USA's intelligence and security communities? Who then is likely to be planting the seeds of doubt and nurturing them through social media?

You won't find attacks on the FBI in the UK media. So you are clearly being influenced by these US hard right sources, many of whom are one person outfits, feeding off others. Where do they get their "information"? Not from detailed, cross referenced, independently verified research. No, from the web and an over-active imagination. Who puts such things onto the web? Why don't you ask the Russians and Steve Bannon for an answer on that question.

To suggest that these "sources" deserve to be treated seriously, and are as valuable as the MSM is obvious nonsense. People are being manipulated and their prejudices used as tools against the rest of us.

There are signs that the USA, as a whole, is beginning to understand this and deal with it.

It is though very sad to see it go largely unrecognised here.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I would be genuinely interested in knowing what you believe were positives from his time in office, that he had any contribution to achieving. Not things that would have happened anyway.

I sat and thought for a while and couldn't think of any at all. So to be fair I googled it to see what others might come up with and found this list of the 20 biggest "achievements" which have been circulated on social media, being fact checked by the NY Times:-

[Link]

It seems most were the result of work done either by others, or in process before he took office, and just signed off by him, and a few, quite minor, others.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Newsflash, newsflash, newsflash! CPNEWSunderstands Nancy Pelosi will not be standing for reelection for speaker of the house next time- lets hope the right wing nut attacking her husband hasn"t silenced democracy- thanks Nancy for your great service from all at cpnews.com and all my friends on hol!

This woman has more skeletons than UCH so it’s time to lock them up before they come rattling out.

LOL There is always an exception to the rule.

The reason the US speaker is not the same as ours is that in this country the PM sits in the legislature so can run things whilst in the US the president doesn't so he needs somebody to do the day to day stuff in Congress.

This is normally a heavyweight (rather than a back bench MP) who isn't interested in running for President.

During the Trump Presidency the Democrats had the majority in the lower house so Nancy Pelosi was the unofficial leader of the of the opposition until they picked Biden to run against him.

The new Republican speaker will basically be the voice of the GOP until such times as they elect their Presidential candidate so it is an important role with a lot of power. They will now block Biden's agenda for the next 2 years.

One more point