The vaxholes will only wake up when there has been massive amount of damage and they start looking for answers. They'll see the big picture when they realize that it was all preventable and that they've been played. Their awakening will only come about when their ego/pride/trust has been violated. But by then, it will all be too late.
We can try to tell them we warned them, but they will deny it. Instead, they'll rage at the government and demand an explanation... They'll then gleefully accept that explanation and submit to a new round of propaganda and thought-control.
Professional agitator there specifically to push people into violence. His job is to embolden other people in the crowd to begin throwing punches and destroying things. Eventually, the violence snowballs and continues on its own. That's when he gets pulled out and moved to another protest that they want to turn violent.
This is all manipulation to drive chaos and through chaos create fear. Fear is the mechanism through which our liberties get stripped away.
The leftists have found a formula to push their agenda that works.
Of course. Why would you trust your eyes anyway.
Because your eyes (and link to the brain) can be easily tricked because of the way our brains process what we see. Our brains always try to take shortcuts to perceive things as they exist in reality to allow us to react quickly; but it makes incorrect assumptions sometimes.
In this case, your brain is assuming that the shadow cast on Biden's forehead is from the woman standing behind him, when it's actually from Kamala. That immediately causes your brain to place her position on a plane parallel to Biden. But your brain took the wrong shortcut here. She's a few feet behind him. If you cover her up and watch as the shadow appears, you'll see that it's coming from Kamala and the other woman never interacts with Biden at all.
Also not fake. Did that one months ago. The fuzziness of the boom microphones make it look like they're out of focus and tricks your brain into thinking they're very close to the camera (as we understand cameras to blur things closer to the lens than the object that's in focus). But they're actually in focus and extended out several feet in front of the camera. Biden actually leans over those microphones when he makes his hand gesture and his hand grazes and briefly passes in front of them.
The perspective of the telephoto lens causes a loss of depth perception. It looks like she's standing directly behind him, but in reality she's probably 2-3 feet back. So it looks like her clapping hands are directly next to his head, but they're actually 2-3 feet behind his head. Then when he moves his head, the shadow from Kamala's clapping hands appear on his forehead directly next to the other lady's clapping hands; making it look like the shadow is being cast from the other woman. All combined, this tricks your brain into perceiving that she is standing right over his shoulder, when she's not.
Not at all. They are under oath in that circumstance. The judge's priority is to protect the rights of the accused. So he can ask them, and they must answer truthfully or perjure themselves or be in contempt of court.
Not up for debate. Obama was constitutionally elected to the office of President twice and served two full terms. The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be elected to President, therefor he is not eligible for Vice-President. There's no constitutional question about this.
(it's also up for debate if Obama was EVER eligible for POTUS at all but rules schmules, right?)
Lacking evidence, it's a moot point, really. Not something I'll waste my time on.
Sure does. The Judge will remove everyone from the room except the bailiff and the record-keeper and poll the jury; directly asking each person what their verdict is and if their verdict is being influenced by anything outside of the evidence.
If they were to say that they are afraid of riots, the judge could dismiss them and recall alternates to replace them. Once they say they're afraid of riots, they're no longer being an impartial juror and it would be unconstitutional for the judge to allow them to remain on the jury as it would violate Kyle's right to a fair trial.
As far as I know, this is a very rare occurrence. But this case has been pretty wacky altogether anyway.
This would probably present a high burden to prove. To prove libel, they'd have to prove that 1) the statement was false, 2) that the individuals making the statement knew that the statement was false (or should have known it was false), and 3) that they acted negligently or with malice toward the subject of the statement.
Element one is a no-brainer. Element two is going to be difficult to prove. Element three would be very tough.
Not saying he shouldn't try. But libel cases against the media are very difficult because they have "special" 1st amendment protections that you have to overcome.
There is potentially a Constitutional loophole that could even allow for Obama himself to become POTUS for a third term.
So, no. No such loophole exists. The 12th amendment states "... no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President due to the 22nd amendment limiting the number of Presidential terms to two.
Sylvia Browne made thousands of predictions that were wrong. She told many people with missing children that their kids were dead only for them to be found alive. She made many claims of missing children being sold into sex slavery only for their bodies to be discovered and autopsies to show that they died shortly after abduction. She was also a convicted fraudster.
Stop calling everything fake. It makes everyone here look like a psychopath.
If you see something and you start to rationalize why it is fake, just remember that 99% of your assumptions are wrong. People sit up after major trauma like this. It's not uncommon and there are a million videos out there showing it happen. This picture shows a tourniquet applied directly above the wound which is preventing massive blood loss.
The things you think make this look fake are either wrong or completely normal.
I wonder how they're forming this lawsuit to fall under SCOTUS original jurisdiction. The only paths are State v. State or State v. United States. Remember the last time there was the Texas et. al. v. Pennsylvania case where SCOTUS had original jurisdiction and they issued an unsigned order saying that Texas had no standing.
Justice Alito stated in his dissent that there was precedent that they had no discretion in hearing a case where they had original jurisdiction. Which makes sense; otherwise that leaves no recourse for the complainant to seek a judicial remedy.
But the chief justice is a coward and wouldn't even sign the order denying the case on standing. I see this same situation playing out again. Roberts will deny this case on standing and do so with an unsigned order. There will be no recourse for the states, and we'll be back to square one.
They can't ban unvaxed emergency patients, if I understand correctly. Though they will very likely try to coerce them to take the vaccine while in their care.