For a second I thought it could be the criminal Eric Ciaramella, a CIA gofer who wrongfully claimed whistleblower protections for leaking details of President Trump's communications to his corrupt political enemies, but it isn't the criminal Eric Ciaramella, it's the lispy queer Carlos Maza.
The oyest of veys
You know, when you crack this one on a leftist, they try to tell you it's "illogical" or "reductive". No hint of an argument- the best attempt at actual response I had was one claiming that puberty blockers "delayed the choice". Silly bastard. They also fail to square the circle of how boys can play with fairy princesses, but also wanting to play with fairy princesses is a sign you're really a girl.
Puberty blockers are illegal in the UK now, found to be a dangerous, unsupported adventure in human experimentation. You guys have a far more powerful pharma lobby to contend with, but that said Trump has no fear putting the screws to them.
Addressing this trans nonsense early in his next term would be a popular cause- let the lefties come on tv and explain through lipstick-caked stubble that it's a violation of human rights if they don't auger a hole in your child's crotch and stuff it with rotting lunchmeat the moment he sings along to Frozen.
For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
Think about what this says to thd soldiers themselves- I could think of nothing more demoralising than the crushing understanding that whatever my objectives, they come second to some foul swamp creature getting one over on the American people, putting me in harm's way for no nobler reason than enabling a lie
Look at the variation in the Dem narrow win column- our 'narrow wins' highly consistent, reflecting a popular shift, theirs all over the place with narrow victories, narrow defeats, and- oh, what's this? A number of anomalous blow-out victories? How very strange...
Spoliation of evidence- the ONE TRICK judges hate! Find out how this beady-eyed Pennsylvania governor got FREE HOUSING AND FOOD for ten years!
It did it in VA too, which suggests that there could be some artifact it picks up, or indeed that VA was the subject of fraud, though it hasn't been challenged yet.
It definitely activates the almonds. Further clues would be in statistics of how many votes follow this pattern in comparable situations- how many Trump votes were President only? How many are typically expected? We have no benchmark, thanks to the mail-in madness, which has enabled all sorts of impossible-to-detect misconduct.
The problem here is that there are lots of very-low-information voters out there who may have been told to do one thing with their ballot, and that's fill in the Biden circle, and don't do anything else, you might fuck it up. That's for all intents and purposes a legitimate vote, even though it was cast in ignorance and likely on orders from somebody else. I could even have made some halfwit fill it in as I looked over his shoulder, and I don't doubt for a moment that such things happened on a large scale.
It goes to show, though, that the mail-in ballot is not a secret ballot. The problem is that in principle, neither is the absentee ballot- though anybody applying for such a thing has to overcome a procedural barrier to entry. I am unlikely to do that if I don't care or know about politics, but if a ballot is thrust on me, I have little instinct to guard it. Somebody from the local Dem machine wants me to fill it in a certain way? Sure, whatever.
The secret ballot is there to protect voters and the process itself. I'd definitely argue (among other arguments) that mass, unsolicited mail in ballots without requirements for signature verification violate the principles of a secret ballot, by making it very easy to pressure or subvert voters, and the principle of one voter, one vote.
How far would the Dems go? Is there any reason why I couldn't simply go door-to-door with a stack of ballots, and promise to look away as the voter filled it in and dropped it in my backpack?
Certainly not, they'd say, the process is ripe for abuse, but I get the feeling that if I had a D rosette on they would fight for my right to be a mobile polling station- look, Republicans, this way each voter is confirmed to be alive! Doesn't that answer your questions?
Careful- the turnout was technically possible, just incredibly unlikely, somewhere north of 85%. The data saying 3.1m was out of date, WI allowed late registrations
Seems like that targeted 'incompetence' that only seems to nudge numbers one way. If nothing else, I imagine this shows that ballot boxes were moved around and misattributed, presumably without proper chain of custody or it would have been noticed.
Edit- where did those ballots come from- it's not like there are huge shortfalls in other places. Stinks to high heaven
House decides a tie, but with ME2 going for the enemy I don't think a tie is possible
"Learn about US 2020 election safety efforts"- as though we haven't all learned about them over the past two days
That money goes to Tencent, owned by the CCP, so eventually Joe will be getting 10% of some of it. Hope they are declaring the donation!
What does that even mean? It's definitively murder to, well, murder somebody. Degree charged should follow the long-established definitions- was it premeditated (capital/1), heat of the moment(~2), negligent (~3/manslaughter) etc.
I imagine they believe that cops are purposely executing restrained prisoners in cold blood and then getting away with it, something I've simply not heard of happening any time recently. Manslaughter, definitely, even second degree, but never wilful, premeditated murder of a restrained individual. Daniel Shaver is probably the closest, and that cockroach Brailsford beat the charge anyway, charging him with super-double-murder wouldn't have made a bit of difference, and the killer of Justine Damond was acquitted of intentional murder 2, but guilty of murder 3 and manslaughter.
Don't threaten me with a good time
Wonder how many more shitlibs are saying to themselves "If Trump gets re-elected, I'm leaving the gene pool". Winning!
I'm imagining some tech cockroach pitching it as "social media meets paypal", though I really shouldn't as it sends my blood pressure skyrocketing.
Oof. Are they voting for Joe, or against Trump, though? Joe has barely outlined a coherent platform, so far as I can tell- maybe I haven't looked hard enough but it's very surface-level stuff, spunking money up the wall on more of his "shovel-ready jobs" or whatever he's calling it this time (47 years, bloody hell).
He's turned every which way on a number of key issues, to the point where even if I really wanted to trannify a class of children in a government-funded, wind powered operating room, I still wouldn't quite know how he would get that done. He's been subconsciously cheering on Trumpism economically with some of his plans- perhaps in line with his odd detachment from the world around him, he's saying he's going to do what Trump is already doing in an historically successful way.
If you can do it without self-doxing, an insight into the average Biden voter would be an interesting read. Do they really think that Biden will finally "establish racial equity in America", or is it party-line voting, where D means "party of the common man"?
All of their other insults are "problematic" in some way. They can't say "idiot" or "moron" or "cretin" because those are discriminatory against idiots, morons and cretins. There was a song a while back that poked fun a the tendency- "Douchebag- because you can't say retard and you can't say fag".
Of course, now "douchebag" as an insult is a sexist term, along with anything containing a reference to the female genitalia. According to progs, female genitalia include the penis, so "dickhead" is also misogynistic.
Get a better gimmick, or at least make your stories funnier.
Imagine trying to sound enthusiastic about voting for Joe Biden. His dead eyes tell the whole story.
A Shinto shrine is believed to house the spirits of the dead honoured there. Yasukuni is 'host' to a number of spirits who got that way because they were executed for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Allies, or indeed fell in the field while involved in brutal military occupations. It's a point of serious discord in East Asia that the Japanese would be seen to honour people responsible for such escapades as the Rape of Nanking. The Chinese commonly use it on the international stage, as there's still a lot of ill feeling in the West about Japanese atrocities.
Still, it's remarkably tin eared of that stupid old fool to suggest the Japanese PM not visit the shrine. It's very far from the equivalent of laying a wreath on Hitler's grave, and it betrays a complete misunderstanding of the culture there. It suggests something between baizuo-style meddling western leftism and actual sympathy for the Chinese position.
Isn't it "unconstitutional" for them to turn off comments?