Gromnir

we has mentioned numerous times how covid is only different 'cause o' the degree o' pushback. has been many historical US disease outbreaks which resulted in not just mandated vaccinations but compulsory vaccinations. in the past, government authorities has literal been able to come to your home and force you to be vaccinated. there were a measles outbreak in nyc as recent as 2019 and students and employees were required to be vaccinated. no codification needed to require children be vaccinated. mayor said it were necessary. declared an emergency. kids and adults got vaccinated. one law were changed btw. previous to the 2019 measles outbreak in nyc, there were a ny state law which allowed an exemption for vaccines based on religious/philosophical basis. that law were repealed. btw, https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/politics/donald-trump-measles-vaccines/index.html how quick folks forget. covid-19 is only special 'cause o' the degree o' pushback. mandatory vaccinations and testing is actual the norm in this country. HA! Good Fun!

has nothing to do with corporations. american citizens has rights. if you own a business, you do not sudden lose rights. in the us (perhaps europe is different, but we hope not) business owners is not legal forced to behave stoopid. +95% o' hospitalizations for covid-19 is 'mongst the unvaccinated. +99% of deaths is amongst the unvaccinated. a business owner who is reasonable, would prefer to not have his workforce hospitalized and or dying from covid. is not a corporation issue. regardless, is no right to spread disease, whether is a business or individual or individual business. HA! Good Fun!

literal every state has vaccination laws, not that such means anything in the present context as is also perfect legal for private organizations to require. from a practical pov, case law v. codified makes a difference 'cause? however, states such as south carolina do in fact leave to whim o' the school district as to implementation questions including which vaccines is required, and florida's desantis is facing troubles with his mask prohibitions in part 'cause is laws in florida which demand that regulation o' health concerns should be left to individual school districts to decide. traditional republican small government stuff, so is unsurprising florida has such, eh? although it appears 2021 republicans has failed to get the regan era memo (not literal) on small government. "whim" is also kinda loaded and inaccurate. any vaccination requirement, be it fed, state or local, still needs be reasonable or at least rational. and o' course the school district is gonna codify their health requirements, so the question/concern from skrapen is kinda nonsensical. school district board, however is organized, will need follow process. again, we were talking 'bout land o' the free and somehow this is being inverted. "Congress shall make no law..." is government intrusion which bothers Americans. @Guard Dog would be far more likely to get his shorts in a twist over fed or state mandated school vaccinations as 'posed walmart. am also suspecting he would be more bothered by fed and state mandates on vaccines than he would be regarding local. the further the decision process is removed from the people being immediate impacted by a prohibition, the more likely will be a complaint o' government excess. skarpen has somehow made this all bass ackwards. HA! Good Fun! ps many state vaccination laws is open-ended, for obvious reasons. what we mean is, there is typical not an exclusive list o' required vaccines required by schools and state hospital workers or professional care givers or prison workers or... etc. there will indeed frequent be a list o' vaccines required, but is not like the state or fed or local authorities need rewrite laws every time a new disease or vaccine becomes relevant. is invariably language which recognizes that as new vaccines become available, schools, and state hospitals and prisons and whomever may require those employed or custodial wards to be vaccinated.

am knowing skarpen has been wrong 'bout european free speech law issues in the past, so am not just gonna take his word for stuff. regardless, as one might expect in the land o' the free, the stuff which is codified is gonna be limited to what cannot be demanded by government or from employees. Constitution says can't discriminate based on race, religion, national origin and alienage. fed law prohibits discrimination based on gender save in some extreme limited situations. states has additional laws, but 'cause is indeed land of free, we allow employers and employees to decide most other stuff. for example, an employer may decide to not hire a person 'cause the prospect is too stoopid to do the job or is too rude to deal with customers. reasonable. is not considered illegal or discriminatory to have a prospective employee show proof of education or pass a skills test anymore than is unreasonable to have an interview with the prospect. your stoopidity or rudeness is not subject to privacy even if is more debilitating than a whole host o' medical conditions. if a shipping/freight company is hiring a truck driver, chances are they require proof o' a clean driving record, a current class whatever driver's license and likely the prospect is asked to pass a drug test. not require such stuff and the new driver kills somebody in an accident while on drugs while driving one o' your trucks and chances are the shipping company gets sued and loses a whole lotta money. again, require basic proof o' safe driving record and being drug free is a reasonable precaution for the employer o' a truck driver. so how is a covid test or requiring proof o' vaccine any different? what would be the basis for precluding an employer for asking for such info? sure, medical info is deemed private and the reason medical privacy exists is 'cause society benefits from an individual being truthful with their doctor when seeking medical help. we also protect communications with spouses (though your spouse may waive) and clergy. limited exceptions. nevertheless, would be extreme stoopid if a medical facility treating immuno compromised patients were precluded from asking for employees to prove they ain't carrying an infectious disease such as tuberculosis or covid-19 before exposing patients to the prospective employee. again, could hospitals and doctors could be sued if they didn't take such obvious and reasonable precautions to protect patient safety. am not sure why medical records is important to skarpen_one. if a person need show proof o' being drug free, what would make you assume a full medical record were being communicated? we mentioned hippa, which marjorie taylor greene so frequent misrepresents. your medical records may not be communicated w/o your authorization, but would be extreme strange if you were precluded from requesting your own medical records and offering them to an employer. need proof o' being drug free, then chances are you authorize communication o' the drug test results. employer requires proof of vaccination, then authorization will be for proof o' vaccination. is not rocket science and is reasonable. obviously for a football player whose livelihood is dependent on physical health, more info is gonna be relevant to their team and will be perfect reasonable for the team to request. spend millions o' dollars on a rookie contract only to discover the player has a serious medical condition they did not disclose? that don't seem fair. hardly a caveat emptor situation. can't force a player to divulge medical info, but why would you prevent a team from requesting such info or precluding the player from making such info available? if the player won't take a physical or offer medical records, they might go undrafted, or at least their draft status will suffer. regardless, is hard to imagine a nfl team offering a kid millions o' dollars to play football if there is no way to evaluate the health o' the player especial if there is reasons for concern. reasonable. psych evaluations for people who is gonna be armed with a gun or who is gonna be given authority to investigate and prosecute american citizens? we should hope so. have actually known people who were in law enforcement and had risen in the department hierarchy, but 'cause they failed a portion o' their psych evaluation they could not carry a firearm. take reasonable precautions to protect citizens from foreseeable harm is hardly shock the conscience level o' an invasion o' privacy. much o' these observations is based on common sense and/or the reasonable person standard which is typical applied in tort situations. HA! Good Fun!

undergraduate we were a scholarship student, at first athletic and then academic. grad school and european teaching/studying were not complete free for us, but we did have scholarships in europe and while in the US we were paid to teach... bit complicated, but no loans. laws school we had to pay for, but we worked full time while simultaneous going to school full time. we took max loans as well. took the loans 'cause they were low interest and large lump sums which we used not for school but for real estate investment. HA! Good Fun!

decades past, we worked a few summers in high school for a maintenance crew which were employed by a housing development. all kinda different jobs. we were used mostly for roofing 'cause we had that weird indian height indifference. 'course we also got stuck doing painting o' houses, which included the prep work. prep house to paint requires strip old paint and to achieve such we used electric rotary sanders. wear a mask and we still ended up with black snot at the end o' the day 'cause the masks never fit perfect when you were doing improbable kinda stretching and reaching and you inevitable knocked the mask askew while on a ladder and with one arm holding the sander and one on the ladder or building, mask adjustments were impractical. worse, you had to take off the masks eventual and all that sh!te were still in the air. more peculiar for us were the behavior o' coworkers at the start o' summer when we did weed eating o' fire breaks. a tractor would knock down tall weeds, kicking up great plumes o' dirt and dust. amusing 'cause we always had to be aware o' the tractor starting fires. had a small dedicated water truck with us to put out fires the tractor started. along with the tractor, two guys would knock down areas o' dry weeds with industrial strength weed eaters. were always rocky or inaccessible areas the tractor would not reach. protective gear were goggles or sunglasses, earplugs (maybe), snake chaps (they went from ankle to knee and were cloth but with a copper mesh between the layers o' fabric), and particle masks. most o' our coworkers did not use the masks 'cause it made breathing more difficult, were hot and eventual the rubber straps gave you a headache. the guy running the tractor (he were in his early 40s but looked like he were in late 60s,) liked to smoke (we kid you not) while he operated the tractor meant to create firebreaks. we used the mask religious and still coughed up evil too frequent for us to be happy 'bout it. just being in proximity to the tractor meant taking off the mask to get water or fix a busted weed eater resulted in the swallowing o' dust and worse. 'cant imagine how bad it were for our coworkers. people is all nuts. HA! Good Fun!

have a friend who ten years ago retired from the sacramento city fire department. while he were still working as a captain, we asked him what were with the facial hair thing for firemen. keep in mind this were some time past and before the current popularity o' male facial hair we now need enjoy. our friend pointed out how old timey firemen grew big mustaches in particular 'cause the facial hair were believed to make breathing easier by filtering out smoke when breathing through the nose. after breathing apparatus became a thing, the mustaches were no longer one o' the few options to assist breathing, but firemen is one o' those jobs where traditions die hard. ... am not making this up. our friend, who is a big fan o' the pittsburgh steelers but is originally from jamaica and then moved to new york in his early twenties (he is kinda proud o' having achieved US citizenship but is no less proud o' being from jamaica) keeps the mustache even after he lost his hair and quit working for the fire department. haven't asked him if he keeps for aesthetic reasons or 'cause the air quality in the sacramento valley is so bad every summer that he needs the soup strainer stache to breathe when he jogs every morning. regardless, if you wanna go old timey fireman, you can supplement the air filters with an obnoxious mustache. HA! Good Fun! ps we cannot grow facial hair and am suspecting we would need many air filters to make a difference in our home, so instead we just cough up ugly dark phlegm once or twice a day.

hurl works as a teacher. am assuming at least previous to initial employment he were tested for drugs. quite a few occupations require regular drug testing. commonplace. no more a liberty denial than covid-testing, eh? pee in a cup v. nasal swab? in the US we current do tb tests at local state and fed facilities which has a high likelihood o' tb transmission. you wanna work in such a facility? prerequisite o' employment is you get a miniscule injection and two-to-three days later you need return so a medical practitioner can inspect the injection site to see if you are tb positive. furthermore, if there is a tb outbreak at the facility, chances are you need get regular tb tests. such testing will be accepted at va hospitals, jails, prisons, and is our understanding such tb testing may be done at schools if there is an outbreak. before we began working for county level probation and previous to working at USAO, we had extensive psyche evaluations including a polygraph review. am thinking many law enforcement agencies make psyche evaluations standard, though am not certain how prevalent is polygraph testing. am recalling one o' the questions from a written psyche test asked us 'bout alice in wonderland. the rumour 'mongst applicants were that the question were meant to divine a likely embrace o' drug culture, or somesuch. anyways, when we were done with the verbal portion o' the psyche exam for our us attorney position, the psychiatrist asked us if we had any questions, so we asked 'bout the alice in wonderland question as part o' the written test. we mentioned how we answered honest (we did indeed enjoy alice) but we noted how there were a belief amongst those taking the test the question were linked to drug affinity. the psychiatrist seemed a bit surprised but he said he believed the question were not solo relevant but that collectively it represented a kinda aesthetic preference as 'posed to any kinda drug use susceptibility. regardless, psyche profiles and testing is commonplace in the US and pretty much nobody complains 'cause there is at least a few jobs where being a psychopath is gonna be viewed as a negative. nfl preseason is in full swing. the nflpa has worked extreme hard to avoid olympic standard drug testing, but drug testing is done. physical exams is also common and required as a prereq and for continued employment as an nfl player. suffer a concussion? if docs say your level o' concussion requires an mri, then you are getting an mri if you wanna stay employed in the nfl. sure hippa prevents your medical records from being shared w/o your approval, but as an nfl player if you don't wanna share med information with your team, you can go use your football skills elsewhere, perhaps becoming an all-time great ups driver or somesuch. the current group o' nfl players who is routine needing provide medical info to their teams but who is balking at nasal or oral swab testing to help limit the spread o' a deadly disease is hypocrites or profound stoopid. etc. HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

f'ing cancer

now don't sacrifice what little integrity you might possess. you got it right the first time insofar as what trump were doing: "banning an entire religious group." sure, what trump were promising were illegal and violated those principles o' the US as enumerated in the Bill o' Rights portion o' the Constitution o' the United States o' America, but it were political expedient to do so 'cause some bass ackwards bigots were not only okie dokie with "banning an entire religious group" from entering the USA, they cheered on the candidate who promised such. is noteworthy trump did walk back his promise, but not in the way you might expect. trump seemed to think what made his blanket muslim ban ok were fact he only saw it as a temporary if necessary evil. temporary made ok. once candidate trump, who did indeed promise banning an entire religious group, became President, he penned an executive order (well, stephen miller were s'posed the primary author o' the proposed executive order, but trump ok'd, so why nitpick, eh?) which woulda done just that. 'course the white house lawyers shot down this suggestion immediate, so a revision were made. @BruceVC got countries wrong. no shock. the actual initial muslim ban nations were as follows: iran, iraq, syria, yemen, sudan, somalia and libya. additionally, syrian refugees from any country would be denied entry, unless they were christian. *sigh* the courts quick shot down this executive order. were a transparent attempt to achieve the muslim ban w/o calling it a muslim ban. identify the countries where near 90% o' muslims requesting entry into the US are coming from and ban citizens from those nations were laughed out o' court. the eventual travel ban implemented via a trump executive order were a slight variation o' the third effort by the trump administration to implement a ban. but lets not forget what trump tried to implement: "banning an entire religious group." and kudos to you for correct identifying what trump were attempting to achieve. you got right the first time, so am not sure why you is abandoning integrity to get agreement with bruce. trump were indeed advocating "banning an entire religious group," and he attempted to do so once he became President. sure, he failed, but am thinking is wrong to deny giving trump the credit he is due on this. pretend trump didn't try and ban muslims is unfair to trump. he gave implementation o' official government religious intolerance the old college try, multiple times in fact, and the damned Courts and Constitution kept blocking his efforts to do so. criticize trump's execution and his failure to understand the Constitution, but don't deny the man his efforts at "banning an entire religious group." and don't retreat from your own position made just a few posts previous. HA! Good Fun!

clear were an accusation if not meant as an insult. s'posed, americans is only capable o' identifying the flop problem in soccer is the recognition o' a curious shared mistake by those north americans living south o' kanada but north o' mexico... but also including alaska and hawaii and various territories... but perhaps not territories 'cause soccer is mighty popular in puerto rico and a few pacific islands. regardless, am not thinking we need use a websters or oed link, but knock yourself out if you need a moment to review. didn't take as an insult, just ignorant. the accusation were also curious directed overbroad at americans, which is just stoopid. for example, Gromnir much prefers lacrosse and rugby ( @Sarex not much in the way o' halftime shows and commercials for either o' those sports, eh?) to baseball. assuming some kinda american pov is fundamental flawed as you will no doubt find a great deal o' argument 'mongst americans regarding which pro sports is most compelling. the tactical sophistication o' soccer is low compared to say american football. even the least observant fan o' soccer is gonna recognize the greater diversity o' skill sets 'mongst american football players compared to soccer players. to the uneducated, an offensive lineman might appear to be engaged in a kinda curious sumo wrestling exercise, grappling with an opponent, while a defensive back, a lean and quick individual, appears to be doing his utmost to not actual touch his opponent, right up until the football is making contact with a receiver's hands, a receiver who were doing everything he could to distance himself from the defensive back and eventual catch the football, a ball which may only be touched by certain individuals in under select conditions. obvious oversimplifications, but it don't take knowledge o' football to recognize diversity o' skills and responsibilities. combine with functional reset o' gameplay every minute or so and the opportunities to make significant tactical adjustments is literal mind boggling. every single play in american football requires near perfect execution by all players on a team. failure results in either a penalty or more likely the exploitation o' the seeming innocuous blunder by the opposing team. soccer by comparison... etc. again, is not relevant or necessary to get into the curious american v. euro bit regarding soccer which malc seemed to wanna inject into the thread. tangential and off-topic to an extreme degree. oversensitive euros and kanadians and their weird soccer sensitivity is cute and all but isn't actual relevant to the olympics thread. more than a few non americans has laughed at soccer flops on these boards, so somehow somehow getting your sports pride triggered were chukleworthy but misguided. regardless, your initial observation were inaccurate. HA! Good Fun!

bring up other sports is pointless and non responsive (not to mention inaccurate on most points). your accusation were that the only criticism americans throw at soccer is the flop aspect. you were wrong. try and own your error. HA! Good Fun!

only? hardly. is not even the worst failing o' football, which forces the viewer to spend hours at a time watching little occur only to have the entire contest determined by the curious penalty kick silliness. nice try though. HA! Good Fun! ps try not to repeat the same fail and assume the list o' football/soccer complaints is now complete

in general we liked two far more than one. however, we had a curious quibble: mass murderers repeated stating that hurting kids were the proverbial bridge too far. at least three times in a movie with almost constant bloody and indiscriminate mayhem, villains felt the need to announce that they weren't gonna engage or condone acts o' violence against children. felt forced. also, while we chuckled more than once at stallone's gr00t, the similarity to guardians were unnecessary and a bit distracting, and that were the biggest issue we had. king shark were a bloodier version o' gr00t and suicide 2 as a movie felt like it were constant challenging us to deny that suicide were something other than a bloodier guardians film with a bit more profanity. such an observation is unfortunate 'cause we liked so many suicide 2 characters and they deserved better than to be compared to guardians characters. HA! Good Fun! ps perhaps a bit different than shady, we didn't find our self measuring suicide 2 against suicide 1, with the exception o' idris elba's bloodsport. seemed kinda obvious the writers/director initial wanted to bring back deadshot, but found a more obscure dc version o' nominal the same character to replace him at some point.

no. trump, as a candidate clear advocated a muslim ban. ignore the video o' trump clear and irrefutable advocating for a muslim ban once again makes you appear obdurate on the level o' skarp_one. as President, trump attempted, multiple times, to implement the promised muslim ban but the Courts denied his efforts. trump gets no credit 'cause he were unsuccessful at implementing the muslim ban he promised. but again, we has had this same discussion in far more detail multiple times and you and Gromnir is doing no more than repeating. is a stoopid groundhog day exercise. indulge your need for digital self gratification w/o our help. HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

not sure how many times we need correct you on the muslim ban. the ban which were final enacted after going through the courts is not material. the point is trump were advocating a muslim ban, and people were cheering. this were BEFORE trump became President and the announcement revealed his willingness to embrace bigotry and extremism to further his political fortunes. truth to tell, this were the moment trump seperated himself from the other republican candidates, all of whom condemned trump's muslim ban promise. this were the moment trump won the republican nomination even if few recognized the significance at the time. 'course this announcement were not the first warning sign trump were unfit for office, but the fact americans did not rise up en masse to denounce trump is what is most telling in retrospect. trump warned us all what he was and what he would attempt to do once given power, and too many americans shrugged with indifference while others f'ing applauded. serious though, am not revisiting this bit o' bruce intransigence in the future. HA! Good Fun!

if the horse were a soccer player, we got no doubt it woulda' immediate sprawled on the turf in anguish following that brutal hammer blow o' a punch. wasn't exact what we expected when we read the story. dunno, maybe rule is coaches ain't allowed to make contact with the animal, so were less the "punch" than the contact? again, don't know the rules. however, and if some o' you think less o' us after this admission am understanding, but our personal experience with stubborn horses has more than once involved a thrown punch. is something we learned from our father. we were raised by grandparents, but we knew our father and he visited the ranch where we grew up a couple times per year. pops, for all his faults, were an accomplished equestrian. incident am sharing happened when we were sevenish and am recollecting pops were dealing with a less than docile, and unusually robust quarter horse. in addition to being willful, the equine in question were just plain mean and the brute were both a biter and kicker. dad put up with the beast's nonsense for less than a minute before he leaned forward in the saddle and punched the horse solidly in the neck. *chuckle* we were watching this happen from behind and we could clear see the legs o' the horse buckle when our father struck. is doubtful the punch hurt the horse, but the animal's shock were clear; it had never experienced that sorta treatment previous. dad had zero troubles with the horse henceforth. maybe not the kinda story you share with peta folks. anyways, 'pon reading the story 'bout the german coach, our imagination took us back to the punch our seven-years-old self witnessed. disappointed. HA! Good Fun!

keep in mind that Gromnir has been expressing disbelief so many could shrug off trump excesses since the moment 45 advocated a muslim ban. death by a thousand cuts? quick cuts. the normalization o' American extremism happened far quicker than we coulda' imagined outside a nightmare scenario requiring a world war or continent spanning calamity. sure, there were genuine trump supporters on these boards who with full awareness forgave trump his sexual indiscretions and overt corruption 'cause 45 were the last and best hope for unborn children facing abortion and 'cause the dems were missionaries o' the apocalypse. am suspecting a few o' those folks is still 'round but they got kinda quiet after the election and they all but disappeared post january 6. whatever. not much possibility for dealing with folks who respond to any criticism o' trump's violations o' rule o' law and human decency as an existential crisis. the folks we were genuine disappointed with were the, "it wouldn't be any better with hillary," crowd. ... whatever. point is every step o' the way, as trump normalized the previous unthinkable, we shouted for people to wake up from their stupor. all too often our comic repeated cassandra play were met with same relative indifference we now see regarding january 6. am now told that january 6 were indeed unfortunate, but were it really any worse than the summer protests? we should all just move on 'cause no good will come from investigations or prosecutions and is not like this could happen again in two or four years, yes? for the past four years have have been having same conversations regarding each new improbable excess. the fact we keep being rebuffed with indifference until we somehow reached the point where people were shrugging off the unmarked vans in portland kidnapping protesters and an actual gawd be damned insurrection at the Capitol meant to stop the peaceful transfer o' power from 45 to biden should be a wake up call... but muslim bans weren't so perhaps is Gromnir being obtuse for not accepting the inevitable, eh? HA! Good Fun!

haven't seen the episode, but ordinarily the issue is cost. no insurance or wrong insurance means you gotta pay. we all know 'bout how if you ain't insured you gotta pay for emergency room services, yes? many thousands o' dollars. call for an ambulance and 911 dispatch sends a private ambulance service to your home, service not covered by your provider. what then? maybe get charged thousands o' dollars for a trip o' a few miles. the thing is, if you are unconscious or unable to call 911 and somebody else calls for the ambulance you still get charged. HA! Good Fun!

then shoulda' left there, yes? cherry picking like some alt-right radio host does you no favors. most o' the georgia changes is indeed innocuous or even common sense, though identify as "ballot harvesting" is a bit loaded and is a mischaracterization o' what actual were the legal practice. genuine ballot harvesting were already illegal in georgia via a 2019 law. the 2019 law changed so only a close family member could deliver and/or mail. etc. the problem with the georgia law is the other stuff not mentioned by conservative radio hosts. am thinking gd should first self educate a bit. aside, given how republican state and local election functionaries were treated by their party for doing their legal duty in 2020, is it more or less likely that their inevitable replacements would do same in 2024? as for meekly acquiescing, you seem to have done so. Capitol riot? meh. an investigation o' said riot? meh. 40% (38.6% to be exact) believe the january 6 insurrection were no biggie or were a patriotic act. nevertheless, you are certain that if trump had succeeded, the folks on the other side o' the fence woulda' risen up en masse and rejected the authoritarian power grab. why? trump buried an ig report on his ukraine activities and pardoned folks who could be called as witnesses against him in a future criminal trial. trump pressured a foreign government to investigate a political rival. trump refused to comply with Congressional demands for records and witnesses as part o' an impeachment. trump ignored spending power o' Congress on multiple occasions. turns out trump also prevented the fbi from following up on leads regarding now Justice Kavanaugh while the nomination were being deliberated by the senate. the aforementioned jeffery clark were almost acting ag 'cause trump abused the already questionable temp appointment power. oh, and again, how many folks rose up in response to trump sending federal troops to states w/o the consent o' state legislatures or governors, troops who attacked people on public state thoroughfares and kidnapped protesters using masked agents and unmarked vans. etc. four freaking years taught us just how meek is american patriots. ps we have been told, innumerable times, they is all bad. so what does it matter if biden won the election or trump stole it? doesn't matter 'cause they are all corrupt, yes? ain't worth fighting for or against any politician 'cause ultimately it makes no difference. is no wonder we see such apathy to Constitutional and humanitarian violations. if is not "me or mine," if is not my chainsaw, then it don't matter 'cause there is nothing worth fighting for when all the alternatives is bad... but not bad enough apparently.

the guy at the doj promoting that conspiracy theory were almost the acting attorney general and we are discovering through released email correspondence that jefferey clark had every intention o' sending letters (which he had already drafted and circulated at doj) to election officials in the six states where votes were close(ish) claiming the DoJ had indeed uncovered evidence of widespread election fraud, seeming based on the conspiracy theory nonsense which you so readily and reasonably dismiss. clark had been part o' the intelligence briefings which revealed the complete lack o' any evidence o' widespread election fraud, but he disbelieved the conclusions o' intelligence and instead latched onto alternative facts. s'posed, scott perry were instrumental in the crafting o' the circulated letter. so, imagine you are one o' these fence sitting functionaries in michigan or nevada. you have absolute no intelligence background and your position on the county election board were s'posed to be nothing more than a ceremonial appointment. you weren't even elected. you got no engineering background and have no idea how voting machines work. nevertheless, to your surprise, for the past couple weeks you have been amongst the most talked 'bout people in your state. heck, President Trump called you personal and asked you to be a courageous patriot. unfortunate, you are getting death threats, and not just from the libs. suddenly a letter arrives from the acting attorney general which claims widespread voter fraud happened in your state. what a relief, no? is no longer a matter o' you needing you make an impossible decision. doj is asking for time to investigate fully before ratification takes place. why would you say "no" to the doj? improbable almost happened, and state legislatures in georgia and elsewhere is making sure that next time, if there is a next time, improbable becomes likely. HA! Good Fun!

serious. any o' them? ... ... am gonna pause to let the magnitude o' this amazing expression o' self deception sink in fully. genuine beyond belief. so, none o' those guys were there 'cause they thought they could overturn the election... y'know in spite o' court admissions already which contradict this position. the insurrectionists, many o' whom believed they had been invited to the Capitol (though a few thought they were at the White House, no joke) were there to stop the ratification o' the election and force Congress to make Trump the winner o' the 2020 election. insurrection, btw, don't require a belief by participants they is complete overthrowing the government, which is why we so many times posted the freaking definition and statutes in question. stopping, altering, delaying the election process counts as insurrection and those buds and yahoos attacking cops and doing violence to gain entry to the Capitol weren't just there to voice their support for the soon to be former President. the buds and yahoos were there to make a difference, to force a change in what were taking place at the Capitol that day. what were happening at the Capitol that day btw? serious, what on earth did some o' you see on january 6 or in subsequent weeks o' insurrection video?