0
AvenueQ2024 0 points ago +1 / -1

I mean specifically, there are specific rules they must hjave broken or ways they committed fraud. I'm not saying they didn't commit it I'm just wondering what specificlally they did to do it

by Quelle
1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

Totally with you on this. He signed his own political death warrant.

by Quelle
1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

There's a difference between not saying something and rescinding something. Elder's damage was done.

by Quelle
1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree totally.

by Quelle
1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

What'll they do with it? Why wouldn't they get Biden first? Aren't they supposed to have data on him too?

by Quelle
1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

Biden's supposed to be dead too. Been waiting since November. If they can't / won't get Biden why should we expect they'll get Newsom? WHEN???

1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

To be fair Trump did the same thing to Blue states, retaliating by delaying sending emergency funds to fight natural disaster relief and stuff. But of course Newsom and the Left are doing it worse

1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, I did. There's nothing there saying that membership on the Board of education depends on who is sitting in the chair at any given time. Prove me wrong and I will literally delete my account. Until then, you're asking me to do what the Left does and trust strangers despite my having research to the contrary.

1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

I did, and saw nothing to the affect you claim. So unless you want me to just trust whatever strangers on the internet without any research tell me like the Left does, give me a link or a quote, or admit you're pulling shit out of your ass. Prove me wrong, since you're the one who made the claim.

2
AvenueQ2024 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://ocde.us/Board/Pages/default.aspx

Show me here where it says what you claim. Or any other jurisdiction. Otherwise, you're telling me I should instantly believe any stranger on the internet regardless of context or research. That's what the Left does not us.

1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

...Wait, I'm sorry, you want me to pull up every individual school board ruleset in the country just to confirm your claim? You're the one that made the claim it's in there. It's Your job to prove it. Unless you think it's a good idea to trust everything strangers claim on the internet with no backup whatsoever? Is That what you're suggesting?

Because nowhere in These school board rules does it say anything like you suggest. So why should I believe it's anywhere else?

https://ocde.us/Board/Pages/default.aspx

1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

So if my 10 year old nephew sat in a school board chair and no one else was there, he could act as sole member of said board and establish binding rules that he and his friends get a free lifetime supply of chocolate milk from the school cafeteria?

-7
AvenueQ2024 -7 points ago +5 / -12

There was no point in time when it worked. If you got up from your desk at work and I sat down in it, that doesn't mean I've fired you from your job and taken it myself. Why are we falling into these traps? This is wild and illogical. We need to trust the larger plan not risk getting ourselves arrested for thinkoing we can steal someone's job just because they stepped down from a podium

0
AvenueQ2024 0 points ago +6 / -6

The original board leaving doesn't legally mean a new board can fill in their place king-of-the-hill style, in the same way the President leaving the Oval Office doesn't make the next person to walk into the room president. One's rank or position is not dependent on proximity to a given location.

This is the stuff that makes us look stupid.

0
AvenueQ2024 0 points ago +2 / -2

how is it driven by q team it's a date from an old EO. EOs are put forth by executive and can be ignored by current or new executives. I don't get how this date is any more credible than past datefags. That's not even dooming cause dooming is taking a clear positive and making it a negative. This seems like you're taking a neutral and trying to shine a positive light on it with no reason to do so. I'm fucking sick of datefagging.

1
AvenueQ2024 1 point ago +2 / -1

https://qalerts.app/?n=1

It says explicitly 10/30/17. It was talking about then. We've seen Hillary since then. Again, disinformation is necessary sometimes, but disinformation requires untruths to be told. That's what this is.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›