Sandwiching this with thoughts of food.
Adding this because it's a wonder that such a method of ensuring adherence to law, one not that complicated and reduces what's misunderstood, is more closely associated with one side than the other. Also this because it's interesting that discussing the issue in question, one affected by politicians who slammed themselves b-lister, should need a cheat sheet.
Adding this because I'm not certain if I've signal-boosted the issue yet, but if that's the case, I don't mind repeating it.
Adding this because this number divided by global population is 1.2%, which leads me to wonder what right such an entity has "to represent the world or to think their values and standards should apply to the world." And this because it'll be fun watching the wrangling around how one doesn't politicize such matters. Also this because (fair point, it's a level of safeguard, but) "right tone" (调?) sounds like no uncomfortable questions wanted.
Adding this and countering the embassy's claim (deepening what now?) with a stovetop reminder of trade deals, unconventional warfare, and (in the spirit of still there 微软) is it 吏僭, 俚蹇, 戾监, 疠贱, or 苙姧? I'd go on if I were more certain of the grammar, but these were fun to play with.
Ending with this because if that's agar, it's fiddly - also whoa.