Isn't it odd I haven't heard very much about Dr. Shiva's court challenges anywhere? Even here, posts about them were few and far between. I remember seeing posts about them a while back, but they weren't exactly front and center attention like the other suits.

I looked through the whole document. It's a quick and informative read. Thank you.

Finally a valid objection submitted! Let's see what happens...

Worse. The cretins who are actually in a position to do something within the proper procedures are going along with the fraud. Many of us tried to nudge them into doing the right thing, but, well, this happened.

Sounds like one "objector" might have messed up?

Is it true that an objection has to be in writing and a Senator has to sign it for the objection to be valid?

I second any and all suggestions to learn how to make, grow, catch, fix, etc. as much as you can and do what you can to eliminate your dependence on the grid/public utilities as much as possible. There's never a bad time to do it. As an added bonus, the less stuff you buy or the less public utilities you use, the less taxes cucked state governments get.

I caught that on the OAN bottom ticker. No further details, of course...

I beg to differ. At best, the crashers exposed yet more spineless RINOs amenable to threats. At worst, the crashers hurt our cause by leading those spineless RINOs to take back their objections.

I'm talking about the crashers that smashed windows and otherwise got violent, not the ones that merely marched in when the doors opened.

How many of us didn't know about this at the time the statement was released because we don't/didn't follow or read closely the AMA's releases as they come out?

I wouldn't want a 'friendly visit' for trying to fill in the blank with the wrong thing there.

I will say that monopolizing the cretins' phone lines, voicemail boxes, and email boxes with our demands as well as peacefully and lawfully demonstrating IRL are better than nothing against them.

Good for you, whoever you are in the screenshotted post.

I do have some questions, though.

How do you actually know this will stop an illness you would otherwise get? How do you know that this will stop any spread of illness that would otherwise occur? How can this be determined for any person picked at random?

I'm talking in the sense of "[name witheld] was vaccinated against disease X on [date], was exposed to X on a later date, and fully recovered without presenting with any signs or symptoms of X or causing close contacts to present with the same," to be clear.

Trump told you to isn’t a good enough reason unless he’s president,

He's still president until at least January 20, 2021, 11:59 A.M. Eastern.

To be fair, there isn't that much stopping a few RINOS from siding with the Democrats to pass legislation the Democrats want, so the more Republicans in the Senate, the better.

Ooh, now I get it! This is another one of those pranks to redefine something that previously meant something else like they tried to do with the OK hand sign.

Yeah, how do we tell the difference between far leftists stating what pronouns to use when we talk about them and pedos telling others what they're into?

Fake. Typosquatted domain.

Every reason Tim's guest gives to vote for Biden is something something don't like Trump. Don't like how Trump promoted the use of hydroxychoroquine against the virus but took something else when he got sick from the virus. Don't like how Trump wants to open everything back up in one fell swoop instead of slow-walking the reopening based on Fauci's plan. Don't like how Trump isn't pressuring McConnell to pass a second stimulus that may or may not be full of the Dems' unrelated wish list. Etc. Etc.

I looked at his Twitter feed. I didn't find anything outright saying he is Trump's lawyer in what I saw. I do see he is tweeting about all the fraud findings.

That would be a fun argument to try in court and see what happens.

Maybe Cucker was right to doubt them? And that's why he threw an on-air hissy fit when Sidney Powell wouldn't disclose her evidence on his show? We don't have to defend anything he said or did to acknowledge he might have been on to something there.

I am curious about this though: if repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would work to rein in Big Tech, how come Big Tech isn't putting up much of a visible effort, e.g. banner pop-ups, advertisements, to gin up support for keeping Section 230?

Most of the complaints about a possible Section 230 repeal are coming from "small tech" sites, e.g. hobby-focused online forums. The ones that give users free rein to say stuff about other people that those people don't want to see/hear are the loudest voices against this due to fear of increased legal liability if Section 230 goes away.

Up next on World's Dumbest Criminals, Election Fraud Edition...

This might work. We would just need to count on the government not running social media platforms into the ground, though.

Must be some psychological priming thing. I've known about this pot stirring boa constrictor for a while. The funny thing is that if he's right about those two lawyers, it vindicates that one faux news pundit we're supposed to hate now (doesn't make that pundit right about anything else or excuse any misbehavior on the part of that pundit).

My guesses: He makes just enough valid-sounding points just often enough to be considered a net asset to the MAGA movement. He's too entertaining (according to some people) to get rid of. The mods don't want egg on their face on the off chance he might actually be right about what he's talking about. This place is a haven for plenty of unpopular opinions, so why not his?