Dubiousx99

It’s ok, because it says congress shall make no law. /s

Let me clarify, I disagree that people should not be informed about jury nullification. Too many people forget that we grant our government power. One way we continue to enforce that power grant is by reserving the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Too many people take that message to heart that they need to rule in accordance with the law.

I disagree, we also want people to nullify laws that are unjust, such as prosecuting a woman who decides to have an abortion. This is one of the means the people retain to fight tyranny.

“Improve foot traffic…”

That’s 22 charges per card. Seems reasonable, hard to quantify without knowing over what period and where the charges took place.

Nice informative comment.

I mean, he bought the presidency so….

I don’t think that is a fair argument in this day and age of software development, especially for an operating system. With that level of complexity, I would contend that it is next to impossible to identify potential failure scenarios. I also think this suffers from a rose colored glasses view on history. Perhaps software in the past was as vulnerable, it just never got patched because there wasn’t an easy method to apply updates. Now that there is, it is much better to have a responsive development team to react and fix obscure problems that are difficult or impossible to predict.

Op, you made a typo in the post title. The article says worth and you have weight.

What you linked doesn’t provide any data that Kamala would have 3.5 million more voters, or that 4.7 million voters were purged from the rolls prior to the election. That claim was also made by the article, and it said that information was from the US Elections Assistance Commision I couldn’t find that report anywhere. Best I could find is a blank survey for the 2024 election and a report from the 2022 election.

Do you understand how to properly cite and source the information you are trying to use to make an argument? Be better, provide sources so people can go to the data and make their own conclusions instead of wanting them to believe whatever was written. My whole issue doesn’t have anything to do with the election or voters, I just dislike articles that claim something and don’t actually provide data.

No I am not and I would thank you not to put words in my mouth. What I’m saying is that article makes claims but provides no data to backup the claims.

That article has no citations. It quotes many things and makes claims but doesn’t provide any references for those claims. Without a link to the data they used, their conclusions are not substantive.