1
Ballywog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't mean to belittle this, but what could be the motivation for trying to mislead on the shooter? Was Maxwell Yearick somehow potentially MORE embarrassing to the left/DS? Don't think I've ever heard the name before.

4
Ballywog 4 points ago +4 / -0

Given that all slavery was bad, how could it be that slavery in the United States was always and only about race? If that was the case, how do you explain free blacks? Not just in the northern states, but in the southern states as well? How was it not the case that every black was presumed to be a slave and never free? How were blacks allowed to be slave owners, as up to 1/3 of slave owners in the pre-civil-war south were?

5
Ballywog 5 points ago +5 / -0

So D (Democrats) will drive you "forward" right off the cliff? Seems that's what he's saying (admitting).

1
Ballywog 1 point ago +1 / -0

I just heard of www.sovren.media, social built on block chain. Looks pretty good. Wonder what it might do to TruthSocial?

1
Ballywog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not the apple flavored, but take it with honey or peanut butter or jelly or anything and it shouldn't matter. They just took my order. Beats the $108 I paid a couple weeks ago to Amazon for a 6-pack of apple-flavored. 12 for $85 with shipping. Good deal.

1
Ballywog 1 point ago +1 / -0

From the report: 3. CONCLUSION Given the strong evidence that ADE is a non‐theoretical and compelling risk for COVID‐19 vaccines and the “laundry list” nature of informed consents, disclosure of the specific risk of worsened COVID‐19 disease from vaccination calls for a specific, separate, informed consent form and demonstration of patient comprehension in order to meet medical ethics standards. The informed consent process for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials does not appear to meet this standard.

5
Ballywog 5 points ago +5 / -0

Oops. Apologies. My first attempt to post.

Since this article asserts that it is only necessary to achieve "deep fraud" in six cities to steal a national (presidential) election, I had a thought - since electoral votes are allocated to a state based on the number of representatives + the number of senators, why should a state not allocate electoral votes the same way? Each congressional district gets one electoral vote. Whichever candidate wins in that district gets that district's electoral vote. Senators are state-wide, so those are allocated based on the state-wide results.

Wouldn't this scheme ensure that a state otherwise inclined to one political viewpoint (e.g. conservative) except for one large city cannot be overridden by the voters in a single district (city) to force the entire state's electoral votes to go to the opposite political viewpoint?