2396
Comments (164)
sorted by:
-1
posedgeclk -1 points ago +3 / -4

Quit posting yt links, you stupid mouthbreather.

3
buckiemohawk 3 points ago +3 / -0

If it even passes the Senate... Which it won't, it goes against the Constitution. It will get sued by all the red states.

9
Icepck 9 points ago +9 / -0

And the Supreme Court will not do the right thing.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Icepck 2 points ago +2 / -0

That is a fantastic line of thinking. I need to think about that question myself.

3
Jesse3000 3 points ago +3 / -0

Waiting on the Communists to just start the election with all 100% of registered Democrats counted as votes without even having to show up or mail it in and then wait to see if enough Republicans can vote to win.

17
Johnny108 17 points ago +17 / -0

Democrats are on a boat, watching the Republicans on the shore, screaming at them that "You are drifting to the far Right!".

3
dontdrinksoy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ha. That's a perfect description of what's happening.

12
RockyMin 12 points ago +13 / -1

Doesn't it still have to pass the Senate though?

23
Worldpower 23 points ago +23 / -0

Lol what senate the democrats can pass what ever they want

10
RoBatten 10 points ago +10 / -0

Apparently, they're going to change the Senate rules, again, in order to pass this with a simple majority . . .

States need to fight this with their own laws . . .

1
Dictator_Bob 1 point ago +3 / -2

States need to fight this with their own laws

Yes. And some luck with SCOTUS downstream. We should assume the worst and act accordingly. We may not be able to win the battle against the media complex and the vote theft. We can work to marginalize and eliminate them from our system. I know this can work but only because we are the majority and they are a handful of corporations, and their puppets in .gov.

3
humblesaltsaleman 3 points ago +4 / -1

What's the source on this? I feel like if this passes there will be a war.

6
jomten 6 points ago +6 / -0

Were in the middle of a war, they don’t follow the rules anyway so what does it matter if they change them?

Talking about “elections” is accepting the premise that we have a say in how we are governed, and that the results of the last sham election should stand so that if we win the next sham election ours will stand.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
25
Ryanaissance 25 points ago +25 / -0

There hasn't been an America since January. Maybe earlier.

6
DrinkLikeAGilmore 6 points ago +6 / -0

Real America died in 1871. Even before then, it was truly just England 2.0

8
theantirobot 8 points ago +8 / -0

At least 2008 from my perspective, but definitely strong arguments for 2001 or 1913

2
spezisapedo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Definitely 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act.

9
Ella101 9 points ago +10 / -1

Crowder is awesome.

40
Revelation2010 40 points ago +40 / -0

Everyone that thinks we shouldn't secede and has a better plan, please post it here:

8
Blazingshadow 8 points ago +8 / -0

i have one. get a millitia rolling and go civil war 2. but i am ok with waiting a bit more before resorting to violence. shit is getting good with all the crap the dems are passing and making people having buyers remorse

5
jomten 5 points ago +5 / -0

There are nonviolent things you can do right now, begin work on the underground economy so we have supply lines in place for when they just drop all pretense and go full 1920s Russia.

Food, Energy, Manufacturing, Construction, Logistics. Dont be afraid to start small. If you arent doing anything currently then anything you do is an infinite increase over nothing, so the most important thing we can do is get people involved.

3
hoffytown 3 points ago +3 / -0

You clearly underestimate the stupidity of liberals.

2
Blazingshadow 2 points ago +2 / -0

some of them can be saved. one red pilled individual means a difference of 2 combatants in the civil war if the person changes to the other side

11
lixa 11 points ago +11 / -0
  1. And take an updoot anyway.
18
Global_Tornado 18 points ago +18 / -0

Why give up the country? Hold a continental congress and eliminate the Federal Government and replace it.

7
TankerD18 7 points ago +7 / -0

You aren't going to get to a continental congress without the most brutal civil war in history. Don't think it'd be that easy for a minute.

3
feraxil 3 points ago +3 / -0

People need to start pretending there's going to be a civil war.

Its going to be a very fast, very brutal, slaughterfest. War crime accusations from foreign powers will be rampant.

And after 3 days the dust will settle, the sun will shine, and the Democrat machine will have capitulated, either by dying or by leaving.

1
spezisapedo 1 point ago +1 / -0

or they will take far more power and make sure nothing like that can happen again... as if they havent already.

27
AnotherPedeInTheWall 27 points ago +27 / -0

Civil War.

44
cucumbersandwich 44 points ago +44 / -0

Up next, the Senate...

A CCP member buys a $150,000,000 piece of "art" remotely via call-in to an auction in NYC. The owner/"art collector" of large paintings of shit on a white background, who is a US citizen, makes bank and donates $millions to the PAC or senator campaign of choice.

Then, what do you know, the Senate RINOs fold, they got what they want, and walk away with smiles on their faces thinking about that new house in the gated community they'll buy, and the nicer private school they can afford for their spawn.

Welcome to the USA!!!

39
SteelDriver 39 points ago +39 / -0

Dems just a month ago: "Election laws are the states' purview. Those from other states have no standing to challenge them." (honestly, the correct interpretation)

Dems now: "Election laws should be the sole purview of the Federal Government. ...to ensure fairness."

I can't wait for the hypocritical propaganda media memes. That's about all we'd get if this bullshit made it out of the Senate (I'd say it likely doesn't).

2
current_horror 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't see how the court can rule that a state isn't impacted by the illegal behavior of another state in the process to elect a federal government that preside over all states.

If a state decided to assign its electoral votes according to the results of gladiatorial combat, the rest of the states would be well within their rights to either reject those electoral votes or withdraw from the compact altogether. Clearly, there is a range of acceptable processes for valid contribution to the federal election, and that range is defined by local election law. Texas sued precisely those states that broke their own laws, correctly reasoning that Texas should not be bound by a compact with parties who do not adhere to the norms established by their own laws. Put another way: why honor a contract with states that are actively breaking their own contracts?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
feraxil 3 points ago +3 / -0

That is not the correct interpretation once you account for national elections and damages to other states via the mishandling of one states' elections.

5
SteelDriver 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes, I know that's the angle the states were going for. I thought the Supreme Court should have, at least, heard the case based on that logic.

That the left-leaning states argued for "states' rights" (which I am almost always for) and then, six weeks later, their representatives want the Feds to run roughshod over those very same rights is another flashpoint of leftist hypocrisy. The only thing the left is logically consistent on is their lust for power over others.

1
feraxil 1 point ago +1 / -0

And degeneracy. They've always been consistent there.

13
Sir_Girth 13 points ago +13 / -0

Changing the rules to ensure they win is part of the DNC’s playbook.

12
SteelDriver 12 points ago +12 / -0

I think it is their entire playbook.

16
Robiscore98 16 points ago +16 / -0

DOA in the Senate im fine

4
RoBatten 4 points ago +4 / -0

It might pass. They're considering changing rules to allow this to pass with a simple majority, which they can get with RINOs helping out as usual . . .

5
Robiscore98 5 points ago +5 / -0

Moderate Dems won't nuke the filibuster. Manchin and Sinema already stated its not happening

16
MuricaQThroatpuncher 16 points ago +16 / -0

This bullshit is a declaration of war. Every conversation on this that doesn't start and end with that is a waste.

7
Goldlight 7 points ago +7 / -0

contact your reps anyway

20
chris82tk 20 points ago +20 / -0

Yeah, same with gun control. But the fact is that it's scary how close this is. The bulwark is thin. With how many RINO cucks there are, there's only ~10-15 or so senators standing between us and terrible leftist bills becoming law.

1
Ryanaissance 1 point ago +1 / -0

Luckily, the USSA's government holds no power in the USA.

16
Robiscore98 16 points ago +16 / -0

This government is a joke. Puppet in the WH, 50+ psychotic members of congress, and countless members of the deep state. China's dream come true

7
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 7 points ago +7 / -0

It’s also illegitimate. We know Biden wasn’t duly elected, and there’s no doubt that many of the scum infesting Congress got in via fraud as well.

2
Robiscore98 2 points ago +2 / -0

We better make sure the history books have a big asterisk on this administration in a few decades

6
deleted 6 points ago +7 / -1
6
NotDangerousGame 6 points ago +6 / -0

We need to stop looking for solutions at the Fed level. 2020 was a disaster for the dems until 4am Nov 4.

7
Shalomtoyou 7 points ago +7 / -0

Until they "count" the votes.

1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2
2
magaspif 2 points ago +3 / -1

it makes the democrats look retarded because it will not get past cloture in the senate.

5
sentient-potato 5 points ago +5 / -0

Although I agree, things have gone so far off the rails lately (hello, SCOTUS!) that I'm still nervous.

18
Carolina1 18 points ago +18 / -0

From George Orwell: "We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

The obvious is another from Orwell: "We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it."

3
Thrasymachus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sulla did, in fact, yet they still throw shade over two thousand years later.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
4
zetaC 4 points ago +4 / -0

Imagine a world where you could vote with your fckng phone?! DUUH ! Now get lost and get a brain.

2
zentoco 2 points ago +2 / -0

I almost replied that we got my youngest a phone for emergencies, but then thought better of it because the D's will be using the phone to vote now. Oh wait...

10
MarqueeMoon 10 points ago +10 / -0

I am very concerned about this

-23
deleted -23 points ago +2 / -25
1
magaspif 1 point ago +1 / -0

You are a spaz, but I do agree in the sense that he is annoying as fuck to watch - so I don't.

1
FLIBS 1 point ago +2 / -1

Who hurt you?

2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
1
Spezz 1 point ago +1 / -0

fuck you alex jones is a national treasure

2
theblackprince 2 points ago +2 / -0

The featured image on this vid certainly doesn't help.

22
bolonaro 22 points ago +23 / -1

HR1 is the end of elections in the US. It's federalising the elections and giving full control to Democrats. You are watching the destruction of the US.

8
Fabius 8 points ago +8 / -0

It's already destroyed, bud.

13
Ryanaissance 13 points ago +13 / -0

I don't know where you where Nov-Jan, but many of us already watched the completion of the destruction. We're post-US now.

3
Fabius 3 points ago +3 / -0

You'd think house arrest, martial law, and troops occupying the capitol would clue some people in.

1
RememberKosciuszko 1 point ago +3 / -2

Federal ballot standard could be actually helpful, but nothing more than this

9
cucumbersandwich 9 points ago +10 / -1

Is the end? Did you miss the last election or the 2018 midterms?

16
LiskaEman [S] 16 points ago +17 / -1

There is no destruction; we're already dead. We have to tear the whole thing down and rebuild it

18
Bundleshee 18 points ago +18 / -0

Dude this shit pisses me off so much. Comparing your pathetic lying asses to the founding fathers? Go kiss an anal swab.

2
Spezz 2 points ago +2 / -0

i will not kiss an anal swab i will not kiss it here or therr

8
BasedNtruth 8 points ago +8 / -0

They do that explicitly to make us and angry as possible, it’s very much a calculated thing they’re told to do.

6
LiskaEman [S] 6 points ago +7 / -1

I had to turn it off after that, I was getting too angry for too early in the morning!

I them all hung and/or beheaded. In Public please, so I can enjoy your death.

31
Berglewits 31 points ago +31 / -0

If this gets signed into Law i am 100% in favor of seccession / balkanization. This is basically legalizing a one party democrat controlled country where only the federal government matters. I am a believer in Subsidiarity (Catholic definition), its not just small government but local government that matters. I don't want someone I have zero cultural values in common with from 2000 miles away having any real say in how I live my life.

9
randomusers239874 9 points ago +9 / -0

Sorry, I hate being that guy, but "secession".

3
RememberKosciuszko 3 points ago +3 / -0

Fully agree, "succession" typo makes me cringe so fucking hard and I see many people doing this and no one correcting them or even doing the same in responses

2
aloha_snackbar22 2 points ago +2 / -0

I know! That is rediculous! ;)

8
LiskaEman [S] 8 points ago +9 / -1

Can anyone run over Pelosi yet ? I'm surprised the flag didn't burn her when she gave a little wave lol

1
spezisapedo 1 point ago +1 / -0

i hate pelosi but I would never wish violence on her.

1
LiskaEman [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's fair; I move back and forth. Sometimes I feel bad for them all (like Mitt getting beat up), then they do something to tick me off and just solidify their evil

0
logan34 0 points ago +2 / -2

I dont know how Poglosi has survived so long? Andenchrome?

3
RememberKosciuszko 3 points ago +3 / -0

Adrenochrome story is bullshit

30
BigHonk1 30 points ago +33 / -3

Can somebody please convince me why I should continue voting if every election will be stolen?

1
spezisapedo 1 point ago +1 / -0

if you dont vote, it makes them have to cheat that much less.

1
President_Elect_Pepe 1 point ago +3 / -2

If someone was in the middle of killing you and your death appeared like it might be 10% more likely would you instantly give up?

Voting is not nearly as difficult.

Stop representing that spending 30 minutes once every year in an attempt to save the nation is somehow too much of an effort.

It’s fucking shameful. You should delete this defeatist nonsense.

1
humblesaltsaleman 1 point ago +2 / -1

Voter fraud virtually ensures tyranny. The solution to it can't be found at the voting station.

1
President_Elect_Pepe 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s fine. I don’t necessarily dispute that other than to ask the simple question that if one person commits fraud does that justify telling 150 million people not to show up?

Like there’s obviously a threshold here which I think most would agree with.

And if you think the current voting system is largely fraudulent I’m not even disagreeing with that premise.

But I think I have demonstrated there is significant value in still taking the time to go vote.

And I stand by my statement that encouraging people here not to vote is a deep state shill position.

If I ran the site I would ban that type of commentary. Not because I’m anti-free speech but because most of it is obviously inorganic propaganda.

1
ThinkMoose 1 point ago +3 / -2

Uh, I think the argument is why participate in a rigged system, not that it takes too much time/trouble to vote.

-1
President_Elect_Pepe -1 points ago +1 / -2

Uh, you’re both subjectively and precisely identifying it as rigged though.

When the reality is more like “10 to 20 percent more rigged”.

I don’t like using that language especially as it sounds similar to a few asshole senators and their comments. But this is a much more correct description of the situation IMO.

The difference between me and them is I’m not asking you to accept that fact.

I’m saying fight against the clearly illegal activity while also taking the time to go vote.

In addition let’s look at the scenario where we DO stop voting.

What happens when at some point in the future when we manage to fix this.

Suddenly all these people are instantly going to show up to vote again?!?!?

As a third point let’s also examine the scenario on the opposite side.

Imagine if we were pushing the Dems not to show up. Can you even take that seriously?! It sounds like something 4chan would do.

It’s why I am so offended by the people who push this.

Because to me if you think it through encouraging people to stay home from voting is such a obvious deep state loser position.

There’s a ton of other loser positions floating around here right now as well. But the don’t go vote one is clearly the most detrimental.

3
flybyninja 3 points ago +7 / -4

0.65 of a vote is better than zero. Make the crooks work for it. Creates more evidence for down the road.

4
ShadowyMrBlank 4 points ago +5 / -1

As if there's not enough evidence now.

1
DrinkLikeAGilmore 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly. As if we need more election fraud evidence. 🙄 Just like we only need to hand over more of OUR money to other people to solve world hunger, fix climate change, and have world peace.

-3
Siteless_Vagrant -3 points ago +3 / -6

more votes = harder to hide the cheat. Not that they're concerned with hiding it, apparently.

6
Seenev 6 points ago +6 / -0

There's a mountain of evidence they cheated in the last election and everyone's pretending it never happened. It's just like those characters in 1984 who have become conditioned to forget their memories and ignore their eyes and ears. How ironic is it that liberals cried "1984!" when Trump was elected? I guess it wasn't soon enough for them.

4
goldkeyboardwarrior 4 points ago +6 / -2

They didn't commit fraud during every election, they committed most of the fraud in key areas to win the presidency, and they possibly took a few congressional seats as well (looking at John James, Martha McSally, and both GA seats possibly being victims of voter fraud).

There are several states that keep fraud out for the most part; for example, Florida isn't having that shit right now with DeSantis in charge. You can still get a lot of these races won, so you can then push those people to get stuff in place to try and stop the bigger races from being stolen.

It may not happen right away, but it is a start.

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

State legislatures are doing this in real time in some of the states. It needs to be all of them, but we've still got time to pressure the laggards.

18
Captnyestrday 18 points ago +18 / -0

Can someone ELI5?

Can't watch the vid at work

7
NC_patriot 7 points ago +8 / -1

The Dems had so much success with the election fraud in Nov 2020 that they want to make it the law of the land.

The bill federalizes the election process while gutting voter ID, mandating no-fault absentee ballots, and banning witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee ballots.

1
Captnyestrday 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's like I said, they no longer care about optics. Ever since their fraud went unpunished in 2018 midterms, they decided to do a full smash and grab from here on out

11
Handy499 11 points ago +12 / -1

Highly unlikely it will make it through the senate

6
R-A-T-S- 6 points ago +7 / -1

Thats what they said about a lot of things recently.. Then the GOP folded like a wet house of cards.

7
cucumbersandwich 7 points ago +7 / -0

CCP member buys a $150,000,000 piece of art remotely via call-in to an auction in NYC. The owner/"art collector", who is a US citizen, makes bank and donates $millions to the PAC or senator campaign of choice.

Then, what do you know, the Senate folds and the senators walk away with smiles on their face thinking about that new house in the gated community they'll buy, and the nicer private school they can afford for their spawn.

1
peltast 1 point ago +2 / -1

Lol!

41
Wolverine 41 points ago +42 / -1

Everything they did to cheat in 2020 is now legal and mandatory for all states.

13
Demonspawn 13 points ago +14 / -1

mandatory for all states.

Constitution says Federal can't set rules for States elections. We'll see if the Constitution has any meaning left.

10
SickIcarus 10 points ago +10 / -0

Narrator: “It doesn’t.”

90
leDonaldAlwaysWins 90 points ago +91 / -1

cool, so republican state legislatures just need to pass voting integrity sanctuary laws. we can play this game too

5
PraiseBeToScience 5 points ago +5 / -0

Need to pass a law that says registered Democrats only have a ten minute window to vote.

1
leDonaldAlwaysWins 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol. how many votes can they switch in 10 minutes tho?

4
DonttrustChina 4 points ago +4 / -0

When WE do it, they'll bring down the full might of the federal government to stop it.

3
ShadowyMrBlank 3 points ago +3 / -0

Then we say "Fuck you." Then the boogaloo starts.

62
Ghostof_PatrickHenry 62 points ago +63 / -1

Accelerate full speed toward Civil War.

38
AlabamaSlamma 38 points ago +38 / -0

We'd need Republicans with a spine for that to happen.

When push comes to shove, the GOP assumes their natural position and lays down.

2
siliconia 2 points ago +2 / -0

Their position isn't laying down. They're constantly fighting for what they want. It just happens to not be what you want, and appears like it's laying down. They're getting theirs though.

21
slickjayd 21 points ago +22 / -1

We're the GOP now. fuck those RINOs. we can do without them.

5
Orion101 5 points ago +6 / -1

Look at me...

4
War_Hamster 4 points ago +5 / -1

This is correct.

9
FuckGovernment 9 points ago +10 / -1

We tried to infiltrate and take back the reins of the GOP way back during the Tea Party movement. it was quickly hijacked and GOP deep state frauds still run the party, as evidenced by the undermining of President Trump.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
43
Anaconda 43 points ago +53 / -10

Doesn't have 60 votes in the senate. Why is this news?

1
Hussar 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because it further demonstrates the bottomless insanity of the left.

4
BurgerChef90 4 points ago +4 / -0

Wait, 60? I thought stuff only need 51 votes to pass? I keep reading posts saying "They won't get 60 votes" Do bills in the Senate need 60 to pass now, or only certain ones? And what determines who many they need?

Sorry for my ignorance, I just always thought every bill and every cabinet confirmation needed a simple majority, and not 60. Is this the filibuster that Dems created and are now trying to get rid of? Or am I just retarded and that's something else? lol

1
OXIE 1 point ago +1 / -0

The filibuster was created accidentally because of a rule change back in 1806. It was very rarely used back then but in modern times it has become standard procedure. During the 1950's and 1960's in order to stop civil rights legislation there were cases of Senators using their time reciting shakespeare or cooking recipes for hours and hours trying to get any attempt to vote withdrawn. A rule was made to stop this by getting 3/5's or 60 Senators out of a hundred the ability to agree to stop a filibuster.

4
ConfiscateTheCoats 4 points ago +4 / -0

On paper, bills in the senate only need simple majorities to pass. However, a filibuster can only be forcefully ended by invoking cloture [ending debate] via 60 votes, which effectively raises the requirement to a 60 vote majority for any significant piece of legislation. This is assuming that you have folks who WILL filibuster for as long as is necessary when it matters.

2
BurgerChef90 2 points ago +3 / -1

Ah, thanks! That explains why the Dems now want to get rid of the filibuster they put in years ago, cause Republicans are using it to hinder the Dems.

-1
TheLooker -1 points ago +1 / -2

Calling them democrats seems kinda disingenuous tho right? Considering Woodrow Wilson democrats adopted the first modern use of the filibuster and that was some 50 years before the two parties did their big switcheroo into their current forms

2
BurgerChef90 2 points ago +2 / -0

You still buy into that party switch myth?

There was no mass switching of parties, nor were there a mass switching of policy. The Democrats policies today, are very similar to the Jim Crow era laws, I mean, back then, they did what they could to take rights away from Black Americans, now Democrats are trying to take rights away from certain Americans.

Johnson only signed the Civil Rights law AFTER Republicans passed it in the House and Senate, with only very few Democrats voting for it.

Why in the name of the good Lord, would Republicans fight so hard to free the slaves, and work so hard to give them equal rights, only to turn around and completely oppose those policies? It makes no sense.

2
deleted 2 points ago +5 / -3
10
slickjayd 10 points ago +11 / -1

it needs to pass before it becomes news?

7
War_Hamster 7 points ago +7 / -0

Agreed. The fact that they even drafted a bill like this should be the 1,786th wakeup call that they hate our country.

19
Carry_Your_Name 19 points ago +19 / -0

They're gonna get rid of the filibuster rule for this.

4
deleted 4 points ago +6 / -2