People over at c/Technology have been dissecting the webcode and have determined it all looks like it was maid by unpaid teen interns more or less.
I really hope Lindell hasn't been spoofed, and that this is just a placeholder while professionals develop a real solid website for this.
He's so spread thin. He's hiring people to do massive fraud investigations, compiling and distributing documentaries on it, fighting dominion in giga lawsuits, developing his own social media platform, trying to build an amazon competitor, and so much more. I'm worried he's way overextending himself and in deep over his head.
He needs all our prayers and attention!
I don't think they did. They always seemed to have a note of pessimism - like the famous quote: "A republic, if you can keep it". George Washington handing off power peacefully was a big deal. It was all a huge experiment, and there was fierce debate from the very beginning as to how to best proceed.
I think their vision and planning was astonishingly resilient. Indeed, I don't believe you could found a government with more longevity and corruption resilience; ultimately, that must come down to the people and their willingness to maintain a corruption-free government. No amount of thinking can come up with a system that will self regulate regardless of whether or not the populace is paying attention or cares.
The other big thing is technology. They knew human nature and politics well, but technological shifts have repeatedly flipped the table and completely changed power dynamics. The amount of personal power over others that a single person can have thanks to technology has dramatically skyrocketed since then.
I think they expected some kinds of major technological improvements, and similarly expected (or intended for) government to be more proactive and change laws and even the constitution a lot more; tweaking to reach and maintain maximum efficiency.
Looks like you and I are almost lock step in that, and I'm not even a biologist!
I know the frustration. A lot of people think it's gonna kill everyone that takes it, but even just from a strategic perspective that's just ridiculous. Why should they kill their own sheep and leave the rest of us fine?
How the fuck does round earth defy God?
When you are debating something which literally anyone can go out and prove for themselves in at least ten ways, yes you'll shut them down fast, not because you're forcing them to not speak, but because their ideas are so ridiculous that they hold ZERO water.
We shut them down because we're trying to spread truth, not lies. Letting them go spout their bullshit all the time is allowing them to spread lies, which reflects doubly badly on this group because we profess to fight for the truth.
I've seen many (I'm sure not all) say gravity isn't real, and that stuff "just falls".
Usually they go to a dome because they can't explain natural curvature otherwise. Problem there is that shadows still aren't right.
There's also the geometric experiments you can run to calculate approximate circumference from shadow length; it disproves flat and anything but some spheroid or derived from a spheroid.
Last person I told this to I believe came back and then believed it was a pear.
Bloody hell!
Only 17? kek
Let's be real here. The use of "Cope." as an argument means they're most likely a leftist shill that has popped in here to sew stupidity and make us look bad.
Their vocabulary and writing style tends to make them stand out.
Also, when you look closer at the posts you see the thinly veiled attempt to associate flat earth with Q and/or Trump supporters by utilizing the same perceived arguments in support, and a lot of the kind of, well, jargon, for lack of a better term, that a lot of people that support Trump or Q use.
The point missed, of course, is that flat earth is somehthing that can easily and accessibly be disproven by anyone with the ability to take a few mile trip, get the time, measure consistently, and observe shadows.
A complex belief such as in Q or support of Trump is effectively closely knit with whole world view; world view, of course, being comprised of millions of data points and questions/truths. Proving a world view to someone else is astronomically if not impossibly complex. "Proving Q" is challenging because of it's ties into world view; regardless, there is strong, compelling evidence, as well as extensive areas and sources for research.
Ultimately, then, comparing Q belief to flat earth is comparing apples to oranges.
Flat-Earthers would sooner believe deep fakes, edits, people brought into the conspiracy, camera lense crap, etc. which is all possible but misses the most obvious points, that you don't need that stuff to prove round earth. Round earth is probably one of the easiest things to prove.
Right. Moving them, packaged, from one location to another is logistically a nightmare, but the election (getting them from dozens of facilities, the post office, often separate, stored and filed in different methods, etc.) isn't?
I'd believe both are, so it could be legit, but you are almost certainly spot on.
Was considering that as well. Intentional disinformation, or something.
Depends heavily on sample size and population, as well. I think it could be either way; ultimately, polls are just repeatedly rendering themselves nonsense, so who the hell knows.
Not sure really how that is remotely related, but okay.
In this case maximum efficiency is talking about having closest to the perfect amount of government as possible.