LMAO they admitted to changing voting laws last minute to make it happen, that's absolutely election rigging.
Which voting laws exactly were changed last minute, because all i can find is the usual last-minute election shit both parties pull in the form of lobbying. Republicans seek to stricter laws, democrats seek looser laws, and both try to squeeze in as much corrupt shit as possible.
Pointing at Mike podhorzer and saying "look, he admits they tried to change voting laws" is the equivalent of walking up to the japanese imperial army in nanking and shrieking "this guy raped someone".
The changing of voting laws through aggressive lobbying has been part and parcel of american voting for longer than the black vote, which is without going into the number of ways republicans have been engaging in similiar if not even more overt behaviour such as removal of polling booths and mail boxes whilst decrying mail in voting, whilst using mail in voting themselves.
No team is clean, and Mike is a run of the mill fuckbag.
Was it a rigged election then? not particularly, no, because it was way too close for a rigged election, especially if it was to the extent people claim. In reality the percentages are pretty par for the course when compared through the lens of previous elections, unless of course you believe that the democrats always have 10-20-60 million fake votes stored up their asses that they always throw forth and that the strategy and technology involved in such 8th dimensional chess is beyond the republican party.
LMAO implying this has to do with 9/11 and not the petro-dollar.
Its called a Casus belli, a cause for war. Bush didnt walk up on stage and howl "BLOOD FOR OIL, PETROL FOR THE PETROL THRONE". He cobbled together some bullshit spiel about god, jesus and war on terror.
Most people who are for the war, who do not profit from it, believe in it because of "teh terrortisms", that is why "our presence is needed", because only the US army presence can keep terries at bay. When i brought up 9/11 its because that was the thing that pushed americans into urging for the war, not the petrol dollar.
I like how you can't make a counter argument without resorting to a straw man, very convincing. Are you sure this is the 'actual reply'? I also like the unfounded claim that they just let aircraft carriers rust with no upkeep, you have sources on that?
I also like how you can't list real examples of military bloat except for allegedly rotting aircraft carriers.
bloated military spending on unused vehicles and weaponry.
sources:
The Sierra Depot is one of the largest fleets of armored vehicles in the world.
www.atlasobscura.com
The Army lost again in the annual debate with Congress on building more tanks.
www.military.com
sources:
extreme expenditures fighting rust on ships
Where there's a lot of metal, there's a lot of rust.
www.popularmechanics.com
Ships rusting and decaying (though the ships have been removed now i think).
And then the numerous warships standing part as reserve fleets and in inactive maintenance facilities, collecting rust and being used for nothing before being either sold off or just straight up scrapped.
Was this good enough?
