super_city_si
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2007
- Messages
- 48,790
Arrest her. Try her. Convict her. Incarcerate her.
So you're saying "lock her up"?
Arrest her. Try her. Convict her. Incarcerate her.
After and assuming the first three things.So you're saying "lock her up"?
What use is your right to bear arms, if you’re not allowed shoot the ****?But what do you suggest? If the President isn't going to abide by the rules, laws, traditions, and history of his predecessors, and his party is going to be complicit in ignoring them and enable such, what Constitution is fit for purpose? Anyhow, I'm not sure I agree -- the courts are doing what they are supposed to thus far; this isn't going anywhere. It's a pantomime. A pantomime that will allow Trump and his supporters to live in a fantasy land where they had the election stolen. And -- far more importantly -- will allow Trump and those in on the Trump con to fleece the snot out of the hapless.
Do these people think nobody will check?
Do the errors in the affidavit mean the rest of it isn't accurate? Is the voting system as insecure as the document states?
He's bad at geography doesn't mean he is bad at computers. My main reason to ask is I am friends with a Trumper who uncritically repeats all of his election claims. I'd like to be able to challenge his assertionsUmmmmm, mate, if the evidence cited for the conclusion that the system is insecure in Michigan comes entirely from "data" from townships in FUCKING MINNESOTA, I don't think we really need to concern ourselves with trusting the remainder of what thisconsultanterrrrliarerrrrfrauderrrrgriftererrr human piece of giraffe shit wrote.
I’d tell him to fuck off and make some new friends with people who aren’t complete idiots.He's bad at geography doesn't mean he is bad at computers. My main reason to ask is I am friends with a Trumper who uncritically repeats all of his election claims. I'd like to be able to challenge his assertions