Most states have a "no electioneering" provision. For example:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.61.htm
Sec. 61.003. ELECTIONEERING AND LOITERING NEAR POLLING PLACE.
(a) A person commits an offense if, during the voting period and within 100 feet of an outside door through which a voter may enter the building in which a polling place is located, the person:
(1) loiters; or
(2) electioneers for or against any candidate, measure, or political party.
(a-1) The entity that owns or controls a public building being used as a polling place may not, at any time during the voting period, prohibit electioneering on the building's premises outside of the area described in Subsection (a), but may enact reasonable regulations concerning the time, place, and manner of electioneering.
(b) In this section:
(1) "Electioneering" includes the posting, use, or distribution of political signs or literature. The term does not include the distribution of a notice of a party convention authorized under Section 172.1114.
So what they'd be stopping her for is having a "sign" on her body. I suspect a court would ultimately permit someone to be tatted up and vote, and in the worst case make them cover it up.
Bottom line: if you have political tattoos, I'd advise putting a covering over them in the same manner some athletes have to do in certain leagues. Unless you want to make an example and initiate a Supreme Court case.
IMO the court has better things to consider...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPiUL4yi1s
Drop by and give it some love.
Liberal reaction to the interview is positive:
https://democraticunderground.com/100219574212
I suspect that in a hostile situation like this, her stupidity and stubbornness are assets. Deny and deflect onto Trump. Let slow-witted viewers interpret Brett's demands for cogent answers as hostility.
The best strategy for interviewing Kamala might be to play nice and get her comfortable. She seems to make her biggest mistakes and admissions when she's in a supportive environment. The audience seems receptive and her wheels start spinning, and before you know it her true inclinations are out in the open.
I pasted the video to this timestamp because there was a weird cutoff at the part where he talked about the accident where his wife and daughter were sacrificed/died.
"..kill my wife and kill my dau[ghter]...because of Ethel Kennedy"
Feels like a riddle....
Q: Who is actually the President, Mr. President?
A: It's a committee of people.
They might not know who the committee is.
They might not know themselves.
A group of people, in different levels of DC.
They surround a man that was not the most capable person.
Nothing in this answer implies an intent on the part of the committee, at least that I can see. This committee could be viewed either as caretakers of a fake POTUS, or a group of malicious puppet masters of a real POTUS.
When he says "levels of DC", it could refer to defined government institutions, or to levels of power.
Logistically I can't begin to make it work. Even at the extreme edges of laws and norms and assumed state compliance.
The last possible shuffle opportunity was the convention and they went all-in with Harris.
Only thing I can come up with: kick off WW3 or some extreme natural disaster that fully suspends voting.
Original here. Seems like a single heckler.
Looks like he had these parcels:
720-52004-000
0098691
Interesting that this company paid the bills on the first parcel apparently. Debt collection agency in Irving TX?
*CORELOGIC #2 - 2023 - MAIN 3001 HACKBERRY RD IRVING, TX 75063
Why is there a $14,831,683.95 amount listed under proof of payment?
Article indicates Michael Fosler had cabal protection & may have been some sort of local VIP/diddler:
"We absolutely called 911 during the entire event," she wrote. "We had no idea this man was in contact with our child again. He was waiting 6-9 felonies for what he did, not 2. He was looking at the rest of his pathetic life in jail, and our daughter was the only witness."
"Some things we will never know, but we know that the police department afforded this predator privacy they did not give our family," she continued. "Including posting our home address. I’m deeply offended by the way this was handled by the county [sheriff's] office."
The woman added: "At the end of the day, our daughter is a victim and we have a long road of recovery for everyone. We are so thankful for all the calls, messages and prayers."
Feels a bit related as well:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113301536483621969
I've been digging on this and the corresponding Truth.
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1844869841087258770
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113292078461228157
I think it's also worth reading some of the discussion of the "Occupation Chapter" and how it's interpreted by various military analysts.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3011827
I wonder if there is a sort of covert discussion/negotiation going on as to what kind of occupation we are under, what is permitted (notice that changes to the constitution are specifically mentioned).
"conservationist principle" vs "transformation project(s)"
The occupation chapter in the 2015 Manual is not an original publication. It builds on the corresponding chapter in the 1956 Manual (as amended in 1976) and its antecedents. Thus, the present analysis pertains to a long standing view of the US and is not limited to the 2015 Manual. Nevertheless, the recent update informs the analysis through a number of innovative features. First, it contains a much more elaborate doctrinal exposition with regard to the two questions, reflecting the engagement of practitioners and scholars with these issues through the years.
This engagement, in turn, stems both from developments in international relations, such as military interventions that are not motivated by territorial aspirations and a growing participation of non-state actors who wield territorial control; and from developments in international law, such as the emergence of the law of non-international armed conflict, international human rights law and the law of self determination. Furthermore, its treatment of issues is not in all cases identical to that in the 1956 Manual, indicating a change in the view at least of the DoD on those matters. In addition, the 2015 Manual, unlike its antecedent, makes extensive use of references, especially in the sections on the framework of the law of occupation, citing judicial rulings, government action and military manuals, as well as academic writing (albeit almost exclusively of the US, a matter discussed below).
"a growing participation of non-state actors who wield territorial control" -- what shadowy group does that sound like to you?
"law of non-international armed conflict" -- i.e. civil war
"law of self determination" -- do we have it under our current system of pedo politicians controlled, blackmailed, and murdered by the CIA/FBI/Mossad?
I might make a post highlighting this paper as analysis from military workers on interpreting the Manual & its history seems to be of high value.
It would be good politics to go after an older candidate's health, if that candidate wasn't travelling and interacting with the public at an incredibly high level, and if you hadn't just successfully bullied the public into imagining Biden's age/health was not an issue, and if you hadn't just had to drop Biden as a candidate because of his age/health that you just lied about, and if Trump hadn't already publicly released a doctor's assessment of his health as well as having gone so far as to take a cognitive test.
This kind of thing is the subtle reason it should be obvious that white hats are in control. Yeah, Kamala is dumb, but not this dumb, and her would-be handlers would come up with a better line of attack if they had agency.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/VP-Harris-Health-Summary.pdf
====
"...drinks only occasionally and in moderation...."
Hmm...
That's a great point regarding the provisional. I wonder though how easily that would be to implement, but it does seem that the legislature would have to legislate that for it to be an "out" for this situation.
My gut feeling is the court will find a compelling state interest.
Well stated and argued fren.