3920
Comments (147)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
130
Medtex1 130 points ago +130 / -0

How did we come to this conclusion? THE WORLD MAY NEVER KNOW....

93
StartAgain 93 points ago +93 / -0

"reeee i lost an NY house seat reeeee"

this is why

32
Irrevincible 32 points ago +32 / -0

You may know that, but do you know how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

31
StartAgain 31 points ago +31 / -0

3 because the owl licked it 3 times

12
HunterBidensCrakPipe 12 points ago +12 / -0

wise answer

11
_-Th0r-_ 11 points ago +11 / -0

But here’s the thing, an owl has a pointed beak designed to break through bones of its prey, so 3 licks is their instinct pattern to “prep the kill.”

But the market for selling tootsie pops to owls was all a farce, a misdirection.

Marketing ploy to use FOMO to make you, a human higher up the food chain, to assert your dominance over the lowly owl.

But the marketing geniuses knew you couldn’t kill the tootsie roll pop in 3 licks because your teeth will die if you even have the jaw strength.

So you don’t bite it immediately, and your sense of inadequacy lingers with you, buying more and more in the hopes of one day things will change.

Then you become a middle aged man venting your frustrations out to strangers on an Internet chat board.

The owl won.

10
cctw 10 points ago +10 / -0

And the owl totally didn't cheat, just like super popular Xiden

1
ThisIsHowItStarts 1 point ago +2 / -1

Is this the same Owl from Bohemian Grove ?

1
canigetawutwut 1 point ago +1 / -0

2 licks and 1 bite. fucking liberal math that owl uses

9
concealedaces 9 points ago +9 / -0

Ask your mom...... I'll see myself out

-3
FAQ-REDDIT -3 points ago +1 / -4

Asking you for a friend, ask your DAD.

3
Haitianbychoice360 3 points ago +3 / -0

One. Twooohoooo, THREE

1
Smellmyfinger 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wow, that's some boomer shit right there. That commercial first came out in the 60's!

6
Leatherwood 6 points ago +6 / -0

LOOKS MORE LIKE ELIAS HAS FLIPPED TO ME. HE IS JUST ONE OF MANY WHO SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL, AND ARE SINGING LIKE CANARIES TO SAVE THEIR OWN ASSES.

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'll be furious if Elias walks free at the end of all this. I've got to look at a Perkins Coie office building looming over I-5 not far home. Bugs the #$^& out of me.

1
ThisIsHowItStarts 1 point ago +2 / -1

When does a bird sing?

1
ikeepforgettingname 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes now theyll want to replace it with mail in ballots that they'll send out in triplicate to ensure voters get their copy.

20
Chopblock 20 points ago +20 / -0

What Republicans? I haven’t heard a peep from Republicans about this, only from Trump’s lawyers and independent lawyers, and the Republicans are letting them get sued without a single murmur from any Republican about WHY THE FUCK VOTING MACHINES HAVE ANY STANDING TO SUE CITIZENS

Imagine getting sued by an ATM manufacturer for telling the bank you think it fucked up your deposit, or getting sued by a Self-checkout machine after being falsely accused of shoplifting

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

Innocent people like transparency. Guilty ones do not.

1
bingobangobongo69 1 point ago +1 / -0

The voting machines aren't filing lawsuits lol

Standing isn't really an issue in a defamation case.

1
Chopblock 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s a simplified description to highlight the absurdity, but in a way they are.

A corporation that was already paid by taxpayers to serve as nothing more than an instrument for voting, and mismanaged that task in historic ways to the point where a significant portion of the population doesn’t believe the vote count, is now leveraging billions of dollars to sue for outrageous damages against individual citizens who contested the vote by charging specific failures, on the theory that their demands that it prove that its count is accurate is somehow *a harmful tort defaming its “honor”.

They have no business doing that even if they did nothing wrong, because arguments and accusations are part and parcel of any voting process, and they were already paid for their troubles in that regard.

In a just world, the states who paid them should demand refunds for the record number of ‘adjudications’ caused by the machines casting the legitimacy of the election into doubt, and the DOJ should be exploring whether Dominion is criminally responsible for damages and costs resulting from post-election protests.

It’s kinda like if the NFL tried to sue people who said that their referees are blind, or demanded to see the replay (not a great simile but I like it).

1
bingobangobongo69 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can sue anyone for anything, and establishing standing in a defamation suit is pretty straightforward. I'm sure the individuals involved can call upon multiple legal arguments to defend themselves, but standing isn't one of them.

To win a defamation case, Dominion will need to prove actual malice. Good faith accusations and arguments are not going to prove that, so if that's all they have, the people getting sued have nothing to worry about.