"Some people don't trust the election results, so you must certify in order to restore trust in the election results"

That's fucked. And even more reason not to certify and (can't find the word I'm looking for) those kinds of threats

(give credence to / legitimize ?)

Saying "you're not on the team" is a common admonishment for people who are religious and are not praying

If that's the case, then yes, I was mistaken. Thanks for the explanation

I agree, and I didn't mean to come off as making a 'politically correct' statement

I'm "preaching the word" of Election Fraud, covid-fraud, etc as it were in my circles outside of here and trying to do my part 'for the team'

And of course I don't have a problem with religious commentary or ties to biblical events/prophecies here in discussions

but "pray or you're not one of us" isn't really a helpful sentiment IMO, especially for any newcomers that may be browsing

I'm not trying to argue, and you and I will likely never agree on the existence of the divine or an actual hell, but that's fine. We're still united with the common goal of MAGA, exposing election fraud, covid fraud, etc

I grew up in the church, so I certainly understand the perspective you're coming from and that god's existence is an absolute fact, so you have no reason hold back

There was probably more frustration behind my words than intended since I clearly sparked some comments in return, so I apologize if it came off as an attack, but clearly the religious and non-religious can be united in this common goal

So this is a religious-only subreddit/team then?

I am 100% not against other people praying/having beliefs, and I hate the "that's gatekeeping!" trend, but I'd say there are a large number of us who are atheist/agnostic/nothing, and that seems like an unnecessary qualification to be MAGA

Right, and if we would've won, the other side would've appealed up, so SCOTUS either way

he's done his homework in terms of knowing federal/state/local laws

That in itself is an issue

Like, I kinda understand "ignorance of the law is no excuse" cause people could claim ignorance of all sorts of things, but it must also be the case that you don't need to do hours of research and make multiple phone calls to ensure you don't get in trouble for standing on a street corner with a sign.

It is absurdly beyond a reasonable expectation that everyone should at all times know all federal, state, county, local laws and ordnances they are subject to even while simply walking down the street or doing any other number of mundane daily activities

It really gets into 'prove your innocence' territory, as the cops assert some law/ordnance and put it on you to describe how it doesn't actually apply or isn't actually lawful

I'm in a different state, but same essential outcome - governor not locking down, but some counties/cities are.

My question was more one of principal - I think counties should be able to govern themselves as much as possible, but obviously must remain in line with the fed and state constitutions, which I think the restrictions violate.

court cases are underway, but take for-fucking-ever

What's everyone's thoughts on state vs county restrictions?

Obviously, I think my county shouldn't implement any restrictions, but they are. My state does not (which is why some of the "X states have no restrictions!" is kinda nonsense, same with gun laws where our counties or even municipalities can have some variance).

In this particular instance, it would align with my personal beliefs/goals for the state to preempt counties and force them to open somehow. However, I also generally believe in governing at the lowest level. Finally, this is an infringement, so really, the county shouldn't be able to tread on individual liberties at all, but apparently 'just one death' is enough justification

I guess the county probably is doing their restrictions illegally, but the system lets them do it until lawsuits (which are underway) force them to stop, which seems backwards to me

Correct me if i'm wrong, but its because it both 'is' and really isn't a federal election

Its a state election to tell your state electors how to vote in the federal election

So its a federal election by proxy, allowing the states to conduct it however they want. I believe there is some set of rules in place on how they can conduct it, but they still have some leeway. Maybe there should be more minimum security requirements...

Half the time, this info is useful for discussions with other people when they hear news that 'powell was kicked off trump's legal team'. Helpful to know the specifics to inform others

Like, I know this is the goal of 'the party', but pics or it didn't happen on this one

What kind of notification? From who? What kind of phone? What apps does she have installed? What has she opted into/not opted out of?

Lots of questions

It really should be the other way around, and I'm pretty sure it was intended to be when everything was created back in the day

The burden of proof should be on them before they are even able to enact restrictions

Depends on a number of factors, and who in the current higher echelons chooses which side.

If we’re taking at least a somewhat conventional hot civil war, could be anything from “red dawn” type very small numbers mostly in hiding but engaging specific targets to “the patriot” with more organized militias actively attacking supply lines, high value targets, etc, to near peer battles over key facilities/terrain.

I honestly doubt it shakes out in any of those scenarios, though we’ll see

Obviously those are movies/fiction, but gets across the idea of sizes and types of units

There are many more possibilities as well outside of any sort of nearly “conventional” war

benefit of the doubt, I think some people (myself included sometimes) use that term to mean a hot, active war, not the current cold/psy-op with no 'real' physical war going on

I've had replies of "we're already in the civil war" or "the civil war started x time ago, maybe you just weren't paying attention"

like yea, I get it, but that's not what I meant

I wasn't really being serious with this part

They voted to take our stuff, so its only fair we get to take some of their stuff yeah? Or, they want open borders, so I'm gonna open border myself into their house, eat their food, use their electricity and pay for none of it.

More just making a point of the double standards

But if you're gonna say it

chill-the-*uck out

just say it...

The time to steal from Biden sign houses

They voted to take our stuff, so its only fair we get to take some of their stuff yeah? Or, they want open borders, so I'm gonna open border myself into their house, eat their food, use their electricity and pay for none of it.

It is a little weird sitting across from my inlaws knowing:

1. They know I have guns
2. I know they know I have guns
3. They know that I know they know I have guns
4. They vote dem in large part because of the dems stance on 2A
5. I know they vote dem, and for that reason
6. They know I know this as well
7. Apparently we're supposed to have unity

I am not a violent person, I treat their daughter well (and vice versa), we have a good relationship, but they want to take my stuff and erode my rights. But they also don't want to do it themselves. They want police to do it under threat of force, and would be fine calling me an extremist or terrorist or something if I resist. Its kinda weird. I can see how you'd get sucked into cutting people completely out of your life / taking things personally. On the one had 'its not personal', but in reality, it seems extremely personal because they are individual human rights (not just 2a, but hate speech, 4a, all that - they're fine with killing everything in the name of 'healing' and 'safety')

R/libertarian died super quick too, like is it bots or a coordinated effort or what? Who’s coordinating it? Seems like too much work lol - I’m too lazy to be communist and go about controlling other peoples lives and forums

Isn’t perpetually hiding what got us where we are with our rights being eroded?

Just move to a red state, just hide your thanksgiving, just lose your guns in a boating accident

No

the price of freedom is eternal vigilance

Would be nice if they’d be more open about their intentions so we didn’t have to play games on the way though

Ah, got it, didn't know about the first part, didn't know that was mentioned

Why the marines specifically?

Either way, it did seem like it ended pretty easily. I'd like to say I'd refuse to leave, but you'd need a significant portion of the group to stay with you too. Us just 'having our little rally' and leaving peacefully just after noon is exactly what the left wants. I suppose we're not quite past the jury box yet, but we are kinda teetering on the edge yeah? At least its good to show that there are numbers, but we have to be willing to do more if needed, even if currently 'doing more' just involves not leaving quite so quickly

https://pandemic.warroom.org/2020/09/08/take-down-ccp-by-miles-guo/

This just needs to be a stickied comment on these watch party posts lol

That episode was the only episode of his I ever watched. I'm not a news 'watcher', I prefer to read/seek it out on my own, but I make some some exceptions - like Bannon. I turned on Tucker on the general recommendation of folks here, and it was that segment. Horrible taste, idk how I could take it seriously after that