-5
newuserfromreddit -5 points ago +1 / -6

Trump's planning ability is on par with Biden's speech ability.

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +2 / -3

Agreed. Posts should at least have some tertiary link to a conspiracy on here.

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +3 / -6

You mean to tell me that Trump isn't the long-awaited savior that will torch the deep state and drain the swamp?

Wow, who could have ever seen that coming. /s

1
newuserfromreddit 1 point ago +6 / -5

Could people be indicted for election fraud before January 6? Theoretically, yes. However, election fraud is a federal felony and thus, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, requires indictment by a grand jury.

There's a saying in law that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if that's what the prosecutor wants. There's some truth to that, federal grand juries indict, literally, 98-99% of the time. Indictments are based on probable cause and do not require defense counsel to present for the grand jury inquiry, however the indictment later reviewable in what we call a Gerstein hearing.

Given Powell's past legal arguments in court, I would suspect that the indictment being tossed for lack of probable cause is not out of the realm of possibility. Of course, in this scenario she would (presumably) be using DOJ lawyers, who can actually make good legal arguments. Regardless, given the intense political backdrop to all of this and prior failures in court, I think any indictment for election fraud by Powell would be heavily suspect in a post-indictment Gerstein hearing.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +2 / -4

There isn't general consensus here on most things, and that's how it should be. I thoroughly believe COVID-19 is real and not artificially created, I just think our response is completely out-of-proportion to the actual risk it presents.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +2 / -4

Maybe, but at the end of the day they're a corporation that makes judgments based on risk. Time will tell.

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +2 / -5

I guess everyone kind of has a different answer to that, general acceptance within a peer-reviewed community would probably be a good metric. In the defamation context, however, a defamatory statement is one made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

1
newuserfromreddit 1 point ago +6 / -5

Among other things, the Newsmax article states:

No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election.

I have a feeling that this was issued in response to an anticipated defamation lawsuit from the respective companies about the alleged conspiracy. Fox News recently did something similar. Is OANN next?

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +1 / -4

Well sure, but the person in this video is claiming that a third party can have legal ownership in you. That's not true.

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +2 / -5

The thing about a legal property interest in one's person being generated by virtue of accepting something synthetic into your body is just plainly wrong. She seems to be misconstruing genetic patents, at least insofar as it applies to the United States.

The Supreme Court has expressly declared that a third party may not have property interest in products of nature, like one's DNA. See Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 576 (2013) (noting, however, that cDNA is patentable because it is the result of artificial synthesis). Likewise, a limited number of states even provide an actionable interest in one's own DNA, to be used against direct-to-consumer genetic laboratories (e.g., AncestryDNA) that remarket an individual's DNA. See Jessica L. Roberts, Progressive Genetic Ownership, 93 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1105, 1128 (2018) (discussing five states that recognize such a property interest: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana).

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

What's the astrological upshot of this? Is something special supposed to happen if they overlap?

-16
newuserfromreddit -16 points ago +1 / -17

Oh cool, more nonsense. I'll just briefly attack the three foundational premises that this dude relies on, the odds, the callings, and the midwestern ballot counting.

Trump wasn't at 8-1 (-800) odds when Fox called Arizona, he was closer to 3-1 (-295) in favor of him. After the call at 11:20 P.M. (EST), he dropped to about 2-1 (-190), then ended the night at just over 2-1 (-240) in favor. I don't know what this self-professed gaming expert is talking about, but it's not the right odds. Source.

The "gaming expert" also takes issue with states not being called fast enough, which is ironic in and of itself. It's not clear what states he's talking about, but he references Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Texas, all of which were called from Trump before 1:00 A.M. on November 4. If the theory is that somehow delaying the election calls supported Biden's win, logic would dictate that those delays would at least have to extend to when the odds started to shift for Biden, which wasn't until later on November 4.

The part about the midwestern states stopping the count at the same time is also disproven garbage.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

My excuse is that the theory is utterly unproven dogshit being peddled by a dude that wants to stay in office because he has a superiority complex. Every new piece of "evidence" has its legs taken out from underneath it within a couple weeks, if even that — e.g., the fake ballot burning video, votes from dead people counting, the "130k vote spike," more people voting in Wisconsin than are registered.

Literally, just take any piece of "evidence" and put "disproven" next to it in a Google search. This shit is retarded.

0
newuserfromreddit 0 points ago +2 / -2

No, this one is worse and more scary because we gave it an acronym-style name with some numbers attached.

/s

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +2 / -5

Yeah, I think Warren and Klobuchar are idiots. That doesn't change how shitty the voting machine conspiracy is.

2
newuserfromreddit 2 points ago +7 / -5

We need to combat shills. I'll define this as people who don't want to participate in the community in good faith. They never make posts or comments, except to lash out at other users or the community in general. They only make posts or comments that aren't conspiracies and are intended to incense the community.

You're going to be walking a really thin line with this. Trolls obviously have no place on this forum, but I'm definitely worried this will quickly turn into killing anti-MAGA, but otherwise relevant, posts and comments.

So long as the rule is tightly worded, I don't have an issue with it.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +3 / -5

I mean, they're both still (as you just admitted) conspiracies, it's just that the conspiracy about rigged voting machines is retarded.

-7
newuserfromreddit -7 points ago +1 / -8

I know, Sidney and Lin are absolute morons.

-6
newuserfromreddit -6 points ago +3 / -9

Glad I could make you feel at home <3

-4
newuserfromreddit -4 points ago +3 / -7

Retreating to your safe space, pretty typical coper.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›