That's a big red pill moment if they're criticizing the right for being violent and then you show them the story where it shows that BLM did the stabbing.
It means the door is not closed.
Bradley, Zeigglar, and "Roggensa..." all seem great.
Man, this dude is enfuriating.
I've only been listening about 10 minutes, but they seem to really be hammering him.
Use your brain, dude. Listen to what he's saying. It's pretty obvious.
The line of questions from these judges is sounding very good right now. They seem highly skeptical of the defendants.
Wow. These judges seem like they might actually get it.
Any idea what the itching ears bit is about? Sounds like it might have been a figure of speech.
Damn! Well done! We need you to write part 2!
You're reading the wrong part.
Bad news - they filed an Amicus Brief in OPPOSITION (kind of) of Texas' position. Looks like they're trying to pretend that they acted in support while simultaneously actually opposing TX.
“Federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to change the legislatively chosen method for appointing presidential electors,” he said. “And so federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to order legislatures to appoint electors without regard to the results of an already-completed election.”
It will be removed immediately as soon as they stop streaming.
I guaran-fucking-tee you that the "Democracy in the park" event was a Democrat rally. Unbelievable.
The Demonrats can claim that the state legislatures have delegated the power to decide elections to the election officials.
That only flies in situations where the states' actions don't fly in direct contradiction to the legislated laws. They literally directly violated black and white laws.
You actually have to click through over to Commietube.
"Human Dropboxes" lmao. This shit is so fucking ridiculous.
Read the text of their filing... it seems kind of... weaselly.
I think they're going to win either way. I really don't think that they'll cheat in the runoff. Too risky with all this heat. Then they'll cite the runoff as evidence that the November election must have been above board as well.
This is the uniparty we're talking about.
Rumble is the Bongino one. It has a lot of big Conservative names on it already.
I pointed out politicians who have been in DC, in the same seats, for decades, and you bring up AOC, who hasn't even been there two years yet?
Your implication was that if we had term limits we wouldn't have corrupt/bad politicians. I offered a counter-point.
If there were term limits of lets say 2, the lobbysits would have to constantly convince, persuade and bribe different people. Making it much more unstable, harder work and riskier (higher changes of people snitching).
That's an interesting point!
What do you think about my theory that this inherently gives more power to bureaucrats, since these brand new elected officials are not on the job long enough to gain the expertise to truly challenge them?
Of course there are bad politicians. There will always be bad politicians. AOC is brand new.
People never change their mind in the moment of a debate. As Bongino says, you're debating for the sake of the third party listening in who might see how dumb and irrational they're being and change their own mind. Also, you never know, that might create a little crack in their armor that they think twice next time or later that night or some day in the future.
There are MANY people with real walkaway and redpill moments that sound a LOT like your discussion.
But you're right, it's a long process and you have to have the exact right redpill for the right person at the exact right time for it to really stick. Anyways, keep up the good work!