Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,563
- 149
You really need to study some of this stuff to learn some of the concepts used, not saying I am right but you have to learn to understand how this all connects. Others have different opinions, that is why attorneys argue cases.
The constitution says electors are chosen as the legislature prescribes, the legislature perscribes poll watchers in varying laws. If those laws, poll watchers, are violated then by that connection I say civil rights are being violated...
I've studied some, as time allows.
Yeah, that is a stretch and not really what you stated originally. "Actually being allowed to observe (close enough to see what is happening) is set in most states by the legislature and is the way perscribed by the constitution." Yes the Constitution does state legislature gets to decide how the electors are chosen. I'm not willing to say that any violation of election law is a civil rights violation. And again, if the law was violated I wouldn't mind seeing prosecutions.
You also didn't answer just how far away is close enough, I would like your opinion on this.
That is why conservatives were so relieved to get Barrett on the court, Roberts is the new swingman...
Also, I might add, one can never know what Roberts might have done if he was swingman based off his votes swinging on cases the are 5-3, since he doesn't decide anything he may vote differently at different times for a political statement or other reasons.
Actually how he votes on 5-3 cases is informative, 5-4 not so much depending on which side he is on. In a 5-3 case his vote would be the deciding vote, in a 5-4 case if he is on the dissenting side not so much.
Have you read in depth about the server seized in Germany? This is probably the best example of the full news embargo on uncomfortable election related issues. I will say flat out, I do not know if this happened, but it was stated it did under oath 2-3 times in hearings but most people never have heard about it much less the intrigue surrounding it. If this was reported the public would eat it up like a real life Clancy novel.
Full news embargo? How many "main stream media" reports on it would you like?
And I've read a good bit about it. How everyone jumped on it because Gohmert tweeted that he saw a tweet from germany in german that the army raided a syctle office. It's now they raided a CIA location and seized their server and lost lives in the process. The Army had denied it, Germany has denied it, Scytle has denied it. We've got a retired General who has been out of the service for what 25+ years, saying it happened. The same General who got fired from Fox news back when they were conservative for spreading BS. I'm not denigrating his service, just saying he might be getting a bit senile.
And stated under oath doesn't mean squat about it being factual, it just means at best that the person thinks it's factual.
How the heck do we get answers when the deep state goes after the whistleblowers instead of the allegations?
We were supposed to believe a single bat-s**t crazy that Kavanaugh was a gang rapist, a single officer that impeachment was the proper course, but thousands of affidavits and testimony is nothing.
They are are trying to scare folks from coming forward, just like the mob...
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...harassed-reporting-truckload-illegal-ballots/
Ff
Yeah, no. The guy is ticked because they didn't just believe him. They actually questioned him can you believe the audacity of them? And how does he know they aren't investigating?