3
digitalintrigue 3 points ago +3 / -0

holy shit, registration just went through. friend me frens... @robertjag

1
digitalintrigue 1 point ago +1 / -0

was able to download Dissenter browser in a flash, but haven't been able to sign up for gab the past three days. nothing but time outs...

1
digitalintrigue 1 point ago +1 / -0

ok so antifa is planning something for the 17th, dressed in MAGA. Thanks for the heads up!

3
digitalintrigue 3 points ago +3 / -0

They are still everywhere around here, Texas Hill Country

4
digitalintrigue 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's effective if given early.

12 week supply was six bucks when I bought it last week...two pills a week.

1
digitalintrigue 1 point ago +1 / -0

This isn't news, but there is no mistaking the timing, they have directed the media to bring it up again

9
digitalintrigue 9 points ago +9 / -0

considering how Roberts voted on Oct 26 in the 5-3 decision, which mirrors this suit, he'd have to turn himself into knots to not support Texas v Penn.

On the other hand, he's talented at doing just that...

1
digitalintrigue 1 point ago +1 / -0

they can't argue on the basis of the lawsuit, only with personal attacks.

standard operating procedure.

0
digitalintrigue 0 points ago +2 / -2

Obama resigned his senate seat on Nov 16, 2008. 12 days post-election

1
digitalintrigue 1 point ago +1 / -0

that's what I was thinking, what's Roberts going to come up with this time? He is talented at tying himself in knots to produce the desired result...

But looking at just the law, regardless of how the votes tallied, it's a tough hill for the four states to climb

1
digitalintrigue 1 point ago +1 / -0

considering Article 3 section 2, that's a pretty weak argument

2
digitalintrigue 2 points ago +2 / -0

yes, the suit requested injunctive relief, like ALMOST ALL SUITS ASK FOR.

Nothing to see here, it's an active lawsuit.

3
digitalintrigue 3 points ago +3 / -0

All four of these states clearly did not follow their own laws. In the case of PA, they changed voting laws without the required constitutional amendment. This is INARGUABLE. So how do they spin a response that has some degree of merit to the court?

view more: Next ›