What this really shows is that people are far TOO trusting of doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, judges, professors, "scientists" (not even a real job), museum curators, care home workers, home delivery drivers, the police, lawyers, civil servants, and the ordinary man/woman on the street.
What's with the encryption key?
Last day to bring legal challenges, Legal challenges have already been brought in most cases.
"Improve elections" is a heavily parsable phrase. Not "make elections more secure". Not "increase voter participation". Not "increase the accuracy of elections".
"improve".
There's so much chaff mixed in to the wheat right now that it's easy to get things mixed up. I rather think that's the point.
Sometimes the point isn't to trick people into believing the lie. The point is to prevent people from being able to believe anything at all.
For what it's worth, I've yet to see any evidence that Sidney Powell said anything of the sort.
The claim is that someone from Sidney Powell's team used the phrase "demonic attack", but even if we blindly accept that this unverified twitter user I've never heard of is telling the truth, there's no context to the phrase.
It doesn't necessarily mean what some people think it means. It merely describes a feeling of being beset upon from all sides, which they certainly are. For all we know the speaker was merely describing the people that are attacking us as "demonic" merely as a manner of speaking.
Again, that's if you choose to believe any such conversation ever happened in the first place and this isn't just some attention-seeker.
Personally, I'm only paying attention to primary sources at this point. Any form of "anonymous sources close to someone else" are just noise at best, and are most likely not on our side.
There's no reliable evidence that this assertion is true.
Some unverified twitter rando claims to have received a call from "someone on Sidney Powell's team" that asked for prayer and the internet rando used the phrase "demonic attack".
Saw your edit. Same question.
This is an unverified twitter account claiming that they got a call from "Sidney Powell's team"...
So, Not Sidney Powell, and quite possibly complete BS.
You ever wonder why we're here?
DId Sidney Powell actually say anything, or did some other internet rando say that they heard it from someone involved with Sidney Powell?
"Why didn't I just concur?"
It was a technical issue. There's a sticky by Doggo.
There's 27 listed mods. I don't know any more than anyone else about them, but I have paid for decently high end gaming server rental and divided 27 ways, it wouldn't cost any of them much more than paying for a mid level cable subscription or something like that.
The cost is far more time and effort than money, so it doesn't necessarily need to be anything more than what it's always been claimed to be - a group of the old Reddit mods that got fed up with Reddit's crap.
Same. At this point, if I can't see it coming straight out of someone's own mouth, I don't believe it, and even when I can, I triple check.
People keep saying "they can be sued", but what massive number of things are people wanting to sue them for that they currently can't?
You can't sue them to put your content ON their site, so it doesn't fix the problem of them censoring things from their site. It's certainly never going to hurt them more than it hurts us.
They have massive teams of lawyers and gobs of liquid cash to use to fight the suits they care about and will simply not fight the ones they agree with and then claim they had no choice but to censor people. Worst case they print a retraction and ban the offending contributor's account.
You don't sue someone for breaking the law, you prosecute them, and speech is only prosecutable if it is designed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action, and individuals that do that are already prosecutable without revoking 230.
The lawsuits that 230 protection prevents are related to libel or invasion of privacy, and we sure as shit don't want to open up any small political forum like this one to libel suits.
Bottom line, CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, New York Times, and all the other usual suspects are already publishers, and it hasn't made them any better.
She is not a "military lawyer", but that doesn't actually mean much anyway. A military lawyer is just a normal lawyer that's joined the military and gotten some extra training on the UCMJ which wouldn't be applicable to anything going on.
The other part of that bogus claim is that "only a military lawyer can prosecute traitors at a military tribunal". Well, you don't have to have a military tribunal to try someone for treason because it's against federal and state laws, and Powell isn't a prosecutor in any capacity at the moment.
Military courts are for military matters. Election tampering is a civil matter. Powell doesn't need to be a military lawyer to do anything she needs to do.
It's cute the way they tell themselves they "got President Trump" to answer a question and not that President Trump decided to talk to them because he wanted to.
They have to convince themselves that he's the most sinister evil dictator in order to convince themselves that they're superheroes saving the world.
Perhaps that's why they all fight so hard to keep us from admitting our beliefs in public. Too many people might say, "Hey wait a minute, we have them outnumbered".
"So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!"
She's a mean ol' bitch, she's a crazy bitch, she's a bitch to all the boys and girls!
Charge them for what exactly?
I'm not bothered by the President's statements as I understand that they're part of negotiation, but I still don't see any specific advantage to stripping the big boys of 230 protections.
I also don't see how they wouldn't immediately use it to go after small competitors like this place. We censor based on political beliefs. It's Rule number one.
That would have to be a separate action. Just revoking 230 wouldn't accomplish that.
Honestly, what really needs to be done is a legal clarification that corporations can not deny people their constitutional rights any more than government can.
If private corporations are the ones writing the rules about what we can and can't say, what we can publish, whether we get to ask for redress of our grievances with them, subjecting us to search and seizure, telling us where we can or can't carry a firearm, what beliefs are acceptable, or whether we get to choose for ourselves whom to speak with, then the corporations are the ones "governing". If rights are truly rights, then no one should be empowered to prevent you from exercising them.
No one would argue that Wal-Mart can force you to quarter their employees, or that Twitter has the power to force you to testify against yourself, but pretty much every other right in the first ten is routinely violated by big publicly traded organizations no questions asked.
You're already repeating yourself? Disappointing.
You accuse me of caring about the court of public opinion and then make a BS claim about the "bad optics" being on the cops if a large enough group pulls their guns out on them.
Funny argument after you just told me how familiar you are with the Branch Davidian massacre, and how the large gathering of armed people and their families including women and children brought it on themselves because they were a different religion from you. You talk about not letting them in without a warrant, fair enough, but in both the Ruby Ridge massacre and the Waco massacre, the police HAD a warrant. In fact, that's the only reason they originally showed up.
Perhaps that's why your most recent response was so short. Maybe you're starting to "get it". It's fine. I'm not looking for validation or a "gee I guess you're right", but I can only assume that you didn't attempt to mount a counter argument because you realized I was right when I pointed out that you too are a "racist, neo-nazi that's in a cult" according to the people that would tell your story should you go the armed standoff route.
We as citizens must uphold ALL the principles of the Constitution, not just the ones that make for good action hero monologues. That includes using the legal resources for redress enshrined in the Constitution and constitutionally passed laws including laws against resisting arrest, brandishing, and endangerment. The fact that the mandates are unconstitutional does not in fact make it constitutional to threaten to shoot the people who have come to enforce it.
Skipping past the constitutionally established steps to prove the unconstitutionality of your arrest in order to play-act Minute Man is NOT keeping any oath. It in fact makes you a domestic enemy of the constitution yourself.
Maybe someone could get a good outcome in court for a wrongful death suit, but personally I'd rather us win the day without you and your family or anyone else having to go down in a pointless blaze of glory. I strongly suspect you truly feel the same which is why I continue to assert that you wouldn't do anything of the sort in real life.
After a few years in Congress and a few Livestreams, she's learned that she gets much more direct power to get simps to do what she wants by livestreaming.