2
SuperPlah 2 points ago +2 / -0

No rational person who would want to rig the election by destroying mail would do something like this months prior. Smells like a 100% plant

6
SuperPlah 6 points ago +6 / -0

Recruiters and HR pre screens are the absolute worst. They so obviously have no clue what the position they’re hiring for actually is and then why you try to explain to them the synonym for the buzzword they were told to get they get offended.

6
SuperPlah 6 points ago +6 / -0

The HHS he appointed two years ago got killed immediately. Former Pfizer/Expresscripts c level goes into public service and kills himself weeks later? It’s no joke.

1
SuperPlah 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s less than the stimulus bills from both sides were printing. Enormously so

1
SuperPlah 1 point ago +1 / -0

NPR shilled against Bernie HARD. A lot of millennials tuned NPR out when they realized how corporate liberal sold out it is. Just like Bernie.

7
SuperPlah 7 points ago +7 / -0

All they do is selectively enforce laws in an atmosphere that moves too fast for anything to be followed correctly anyway. They know exactly what they’re doing. I hope a judge sees through the bullshit

2
SuperPlah 2 points ago +2 / -0

Doesn’t matter if there isn’t a camera on them. Trump got a camera because Hillary in all her arrogance believed he was the one she could beat so the entire media focused on him. They aren’t making that mistake again

1
SuperPlah 1 point ago +1 / -0

They could just be fleeing to better ground. If you feel threatened is a separate justification than them being on your property. They make this very clear in CCDW

You will lose benefit of the doubt, but you may still have a case if you have a reason to still be threatened.

14
SuperPlah 14 points ago +14 / -0

Even in those states, if the guy running still makes you feel threatened you can be justified. You won’t get away without an investigation as you might if they weren’t running, but if they had a gun pointed at you while running... yeah you’ll come out justified after investigation.

4
SuperPlah 4 points ago +4 / -0

This whole thing is finally putting a wedge between liberals and leftists. The liberals are getting pissed off because the bad name leftists are giving them. Everything used to be so small the media could easily hide it, but WW2 monuments and looting Targets? Nah, liberals are rightly mad.

1
SuperPlah 1 point ago +1 / -0

He could have done it without being a total unlikable ass. I don’t mean Trump kind of ass, he was endearing to nobody. Bevins only problem was being Bevin. A Republican will wipe the floor next time

1
SuperPlah 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s 4.99 for the OAN channel. That’s the price your link shows it’s the price I’ve paid for months

2
SuperPlah 2 points ago +2 / -0

The original problem was bad quality control on live viruses killed people. So in the 80s they switched to killed viruses, but that’s expensive, so they amped up the adjuvant dosages a thousand fold to compensate. The FDA wanted to cover up the whole live virus debacle because of the one lab that kept screwing up and killing people, so they approved the high adjuvant dosage despite the high dosage not going through the typical rigor. And they cover this up with bs left and right.

3
SuperPlah 3 points ago +4 / -1

The only thing that nature article proves is this isn’t a total novel creation from existing databases. And no shit, that lab in Wuhan had multiple people going out regularly collecting new coronavirus samples. They dance around the possibilities and ignore simpler ones.

They could have just CRISPR swapped the exact binder match from a pangolin strain (which the article confirmed) into the bat strain the virus is otherwise comparable with. It’s really not that complicated, CRISPR is that precise these days any lab can do it.

Never trust Nature. They are as political as everyone else.

view more: Next ›