The problem with it is that the act violates the chain of custody of the data.
This opens up the opportunity to modify the data before bringing it back to the tabulation machine. Even if no data was modified, breaking the chain of custody should disqualify the entire count, or at least warrant a full audit.
You plug the war room sound in your left ear, Crowder in the right, and read auto generated subtitles from the hearing.
Probably from here:
Can't they file a motion to disqualify the entire thing then? This is absurd. Aren't the states required by law to keep all records of the election for 26 months or something?
Yeah we are basically in agreement that the masks work in theory, but not in practice, not necessarily because of the mask's properties.
However, regarding stale air, just compare the volume of air that might be trapped inside that mask, to about 0.5L of air that you inhale/exhale each breath. It's not really enough to make a difference (unless you have an absolutely ginormous mask, but I'm not criticizing here, because if the picture in the sidebar is of any indication, Pepes would need very large masks indeed*).
*Provided Pepes do breath through a nose/mouth, rather than diffuse gases through their skin like the lesser beings of the frog family.
Small wonder independents/3rd party never get above 2%. For the past how long? 20 years? More? Wow this bullshit is mind boggling.
All I'm saying here is that of all the things a simple surgical mask can stop, gases composing air (N2, O2, CO2, CO, etc.) are not in that category.
Mouth to mouth cpr is no longer used because of two main reasons:
A study regarding the efficacy of masks isn't very useful if you just take some volunteers and tell them to walk around with masks. I'm willing to bet a 100$ that most of them went around with the same dirty disgusting mask for the duration of the testing period. If there is no control to make sure that the mask is worn property, the study will show no difference. Problem is, these masks were never intended for such prolonged use. Especially in daily life, and by untrained personnel. You will take your mask off when you're eating. Is the virus going to wait until you finish?
N95 masks were absolutely never designed for prolonged use. The mask is good for up to 8 hours, but usually not of continuous use. It's something you'd use when you need to work with some dust particles for a while, but not worn all day long. These masks are meant to be disposable.
The main problem besides the masks not being a good solution for protection, and being mandated worldwide as a slapstick solution is that most governments basically said: "Some of you are going to die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
Even wearing a good mask, be it a manufactured one or a homemade one (made of 3 layers of dense cloth) and washing or replacing the masks every day, or every time you go to a public space, and wearing the mask properly, and keeping your hands out of your face, will probably give you around 25-30% protection. Not much but better than 0% surely.
But that's not why the masks were mandated. The illusion of protection is just to sugarcoat the bitter black pill. The idea is that the dirty peasants will just be less infectious. Nobody cares about our lives. To add insult to injury, the 'elites' mandating the masks only put them on for the cameras when they're about to give a speech from a podium. A place where the masks aren't required.
I've got plenty to say against the masks. How they divide people into fighting among themselves, arguing whether they are effective or not, or dividing people into camps of: "He's wearing a mask! He must be sick! Or he must be an idiot!" Or "He's not wearing a mask! He's gonna kill us all!" Not being able to see people's facial expressions, keeping everyone at the 'appropriate and party approved social distance' makes it very easy to create animosity out of thin fucking air.
Whereas the 'modern nobility' that dictated the lockdowns and the masks ignore these laws. Like that chief scientist in England that pushed for the lockdown, but instead of staying home, went to his mistress, and went to a beach to hang out. This bullshit just to rub in the feeling that it's all made to keep the dirty peasants in their underground caves at their factory workstations, and off the streets, to God forbid, avoid offending the sensibilities of our betters with our dirty working man visage. Like in that old time machine movie with the morlocks...
And yet, with all that being said, the mask does not stop gases. It won't make you breathe more CO2. Just makes it harder to breathe because it reduces the airflow you're used to.
Following your logic, mouth to mouth cpr would not work. You're breathing CO2 into the other person, right?
Our lungs don't operate with 100% efficiency. Not all the O2 we inhale gets absorbed, to be replaced with CO2. The air mixture changes only by several %.
If a person is hyperventilating, they should breathe into a paper bag (which unlike a mask, holds most of used the air inside). It still takes several minutes for the air mixture to drop for the person to stop hyperventilating.
Masks can't stop gases from going through gaps in the fibers/filter membranes. Gases are many orders of magnitude smaller than viruses, who in turn are much smaller than perspiration droplets, which are large enough to be stopped by a proper mask which is worn properly and changed frequently.
People have a hard time dealing with cognitive dissonance that results in facing information that contradicts with that the brain already thinks is the truth.
Try redpilling by first showing clear examples of how the media lies. Like with the Koi fish feeding when GEOTUS met with Abe in Japan. Stuff like that to shatter the foundation that the media always tells the truth. Once their minds become more skeptical, move on to larger redpills.
clap clap clap clap
CO2 is too small to get trapped in this type of mask. The difficulty in breathing you may feel comes from less airflow than what your body is used to.
Then I am forever your loyal servant and protector of the kingdom, your highness!
I'll take whatever I can get :D
Greeting your highness! I also hail from the land of Kek. This humble servant would like to inquire if it is possible to get knighted. Pretty please. :p
The bot army is no longer getting paid, so they've been turned off. I think the ones behind it think that the election is a done deal.
Also, I haven't seen any gloating leftist posts on thedonald.win lately either.
So if the ballots or their carriers are being destroyed, shouldn't that disqualify them? This breaks the chain of custody, and an audit will not be able to confirm the ballot authenticity.
It's not just DUIs. Is punishment for crimes really the best solution here? I mean if you had someone break into your home and steal your shit, would you consider the police filing a report and having no guarantees that your stuff will be found again a solution? Or would you prefer that your stuff wouldn't be stolen because you have a better door, or a gun to stop a home invasion?
I'm bringing this up because I very much prefer to have less opportunity for crime to happen in the first place, than more punishment for crime, because in my eyes this is not mitigating the possible increase in crime. If a junkie crashes into me, or chews on my face cause he's high on bath salts and I die, I wouldn't care that the cops would arrest or shoot the guy on account of me being dead. I very much would like to avoid that.
Like I've said in other comments here, if you may have noticed, that I'm fine with legal drugs as long as the users are confined somewhere during their "mentally compromised" status, so they won't hurt themselves or anyone else.
Let's take a look at Hunter Biden's crack habit. Is he using crack because poverty and difficult life led him to making bad choices? No, he had everything given to him on a silver platter with some extra "no need for accountability" garnish on the side. Yet he still chose to do drugs, screw his underage niece, and who knows what else...
He is an example of people living in a world where drugs are legal (because laws don't appear to apply to these people). The depravity. The corruption. The disregard of morals and basic fucking decency.
I am not christian. I am not a believer of the main three judeo christian religions either. I believe that we have one life on this earth, and that we better try hard to make the best of it, AND to leave the place in a better shape for those to succeed us.
Corruption by Nurgle.
I don't have anything nice to say about this.
These Hollywood shits think they can say what they want from their ivory towers. Can't he be sued for inciting violence?
Where's equality before the law?
His face looks like he's trying to figure out what are those strange symbols on the teleprompter.
I'm not against freedom either. I'm just saying that people under influence of narcotics are able to act in an unpredictable and unexpected manner which would endanger people around them. If you can make a narcotics bar where the patrons will be locked while under the influence so they will not endanger others, I have absolutely zero problems with that.
Mind altering substances are a very serious matter, and I'm not thrilled about the idea of letting them out to the public. I think that controlled substances are controlled for a reason, even though it infringes a person's freedom.
The war on drugs is being waged on the wrong front. It's not the suppliers that should be prosecuted. Hunt down the users. People will stop using it if they'll realize their will go down the shitter.
10,000 times more people die each year from crashes caused by alcohol because alcohol is legal and prevalent, while drugs aren't. My concern is that if you make drugs be available everywhere like alcohol, it'll just add to those car crashes.
The problem is not that something is dangerous so let's ban it. With this reasoning EVERYTHING is dangerous. Should we ban fire, move to Africa and climb back up them palm trees? In contrast to drugs, many potentially dangerous items or activities, like guns or aerobatics do not alter the brain like drugs do.
I mean, should something like this be made legally available despite the potential consequences?
Do less people drink booze because it's legal?
I'm not against people using whatever the fuck they want to use. Just concerned about the consequences of them being reckless ending up killing other people.
No one's forcing people to use drugs in the first place.