Direct link? How far back is this I couldn't find it within the last few days.
Edit: site was loading slow. Here it is https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/108911601191627576
- That’s not true
- If you want to read things in chronological order this site is a mess.
Plus there’s way more content and users elsewhere and I’m not interested talking more about it. I could name anyone or anything and be correct so this is a boring conversation. Saying GAW is the only side needed is fucking retarded. Q doesn’t even post here.
If you can figure out a way to do it with machines or people doing math, score voting (or range voting is another name for the same thing) is the ideal voting method.
With RCV you can get a lot of unintended consequences, whereas score voting gives absolute choice to voters without fear of fucking things up.
Imagine this scenario and we will play it out with both RCV and Score Voting:
3 Candidates, 3 Voters
Candidate 1, Candidate 2, Candidate 3
Voter A, Voter B, Voter C (which will have the same preferences for both RCV & Score voting examples below)
Ranked Choice Example:
Voter A: 1, 2, 3
Voter B: 1, 2, 3
Voter C: 3, 2, 1
Winner: Candidate 1
Score Voting Example (let's use 0-9 for simplicity)
Voter A: (Candidate 1: 9, Candidate 2: 8, Candidate 3: 0)
Voter B: (Candidate 1: 9, Candidate 2: 8, Candidate 3: 0)
Voter C: (Candidate 1: 0, Candidate 2: 8, Candidate 3: 9)
Winner: Candidate 2
So why does this happen? If there is a majority (more than 50%) of voters selecting a candidate on their first round then that person is the winner. Candidate 1 got a majority and wins with RCV.
Everyone REALLY likes candidate 2 so with score voting they all gave 2 a nearly perfect score. 2 wins with the best average.
Score voting gives voters more of an opportunity to express themselves and give an honest opinion on their vote. Hell, if a voter hated all the candidates and only kind of liked one... they wouldn't even have to give any candidates a perfect score.
And before anybody says STAR voting is good, it's not. STAR voting still artificially fucks with your vote.
I recreated the post here because it wasn't showing up in /new for me for some reason. Not sure if it was a bug or what.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAEtZeSo/an-introduction-to-e-cia-smart-d/
If your idea worked it seems like it would need to be a personal protection rather than helping communities at large. Plus you'd have to sleep in it, shower in it, etc, and wrap it around your house.
Here is one endorsement of E by Jim https://t.me/jim_watkins/1939
Searching Telegram is hard lol. There’s more out there but all I can find for now.
I was a Bernie bro until:
- Bernie was cheated (we assumed but didn't know for sure)
- WikiLeaks released loads of emails
- It was proven that Bernie was cheated, his donors were defrauded, and Democrats not only rigged their primaries, but thus in the process subverted American democracy
- And worst of all, Bernie fucking endorsed these cheaters after all of it
- And after that, he cried Russia as an existential threat to our democracy with no proof... yet he was dead silent about the proven cheating by his own party
Source: https://t.me/TheOfficialE/1246
I linked my source, sorry, but that’s all I got. E is the most interesting anon on Telegram. He’s one guy that I think could really have an inside scoop as he says, and if you trust Jim/Ron Watkins they have shared a lot of his posts. Not only that, but the only time I’ve seen Ron literally change his stance on something is when E publicly called Ron out for hyping Lindell’s cyber symposium. E was saying Mike was tricked and given the packets from a dirty CIA guy.
He’s not someone I’d recommend to Normies, but since you’re here you should give him a follow. As soon as he starts selling gold Trump coins or loses your interest go ahead and unfollow if you want.
He’s got a pretty decent track record of teasing stuff, even if it’s not huge. Just be on the lookout for Seth Rich or Julian Assange news I suppose. Maybe show your friend the post if something happens ;)
Maybe, but the fact is you are tricking people, so do better. Mods are responsible for this one too. It shouldn't have been stickied.
Most of the comments here seem to presume that she claimed in her deathbed confession that pro-choice people paid her and not pro-life. No surprise. Not only did your post not include this correct context but it didn't include a link to the original or archived article.
You are helping to spread misinformation and should be called out :)
Hopefully you are a true Patriot and just do better next time. Hopefully the mods don't do this again either...
and if I'm wrong about any of this please feel free to correct me, but at least I provided a source and context
OP trying to trick y'all and it's working
A new FX documentary "AKA Jane Roe" challenges the narrative that Roe changed her mind about abortion due to religious realization. In the film, directed by Nick Sweeney, McCorvey offers what she calls a "deathbed confession," shortly before her 2017 death at 69, in which she claims that the pro-life movement paid her to join their side and speak out against abortion.
Norma McCorvey in a still from FX's "AKA Jane Roe." "I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they put me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say. And that’s what I’d say," she says in the documentary. "I did it well, too. I am a good actress. Of course I’m not acting now."
McCorvey goes on to say that she still supported abortion rights.
I did a quick Google and Twitter search about this and nothing came up. E has been right about other things before and does seem to be some sort of insider.
So I suppose if Veritas drops this then that may be more of a confirmation that E is worth listening to.