Well, it also says by signing it you don't technically have to do anything with in it. It really seems to act as a way for politicians to pretend they are doing something by signing on to this global environmental bs treaty, while also being able to pressure richer countries to give them money.
I knew it. This was going to turn into a race story.
We dont need farmers, just go to the supermarket drumphtard.
Does nobody think they might impeach him as a way to prove that they are for unifying the country and listen to everyone?
It's not like they actually want him to be president, it's pretty clear they want heels up.
Says Spokane as well
The plot thickens
It's a strategy to make any clashes with police today look like Trump supporters hate police and the rule of law.
The lefties can turn around and say 'we support police in general, but we dont support the racist ones', flipping the narrative and making everyone ignore the past 2 years.
You would be correct
Looks like they're going to claim the huge Trump protest is a BLM protest, either that or they want everything to blow up.
For people who would care about awomen, it's a win. They don't have jobs anyways.
Need to conserve big government somehow.
He said OANN issued retraction, did that happen? I can't find anything, only articles demanding they retract.
Spin up those rotors
No person is illegal, checkmate trumpers
Wouldn't be relevant for absentee. His statement was that sharpies were best use because they dry faster.
Whitesplainers get the rope first
'Isn't it hypocritical to say this when you tell us disinformation everyday?' Something like that
Meme about them until they cry Meme about them crying
Imagine believing someone who the establishment openly hates, threatens with imprisonment and tries to remove from office at every step of the way is an establishment whore.
My understanding of what was said was that they would recieve the redacted copy and then it would be alright to be sent out.
I would think that if it is redacted to the letter of what was agreed upon, that even if the ag tried to stall the plaintiff could just say fuck you and release it. As long as they followed what the judge said and both parties agreed to, a challenge after the fact would be irrelevant.
I missed most of the hearing, but if all of the redactions are as straightforward as the ones I heard, 'para 3 etc.' It's pretty hard to dispute that the document was released against the order of the court.
Did I hear that wrong, or did he just admit that Milwaukee had different standards for requesting ballots?
They are refusing to acknowledge the part of the call where it says he appeared to be under the influence