qantravon

joined 2 years ago
[–] qantravon 1 points 7 months ago

I like "partake," personally.

[–] qantravon 61 points 7 months ago (16 children)

The rationale for this actually makes some sense. You wouldn't want an incumbent to be able to remove an opponent by railroading them into a minor felony conviction. With the way Trump ran things, if all it took was a minor felony to make sure Biden was ineligible, he absolutely would have pressured the DOJ to find something.

[–] qantravon 5 points 7 months ago

I didn't actually realize that, but I would still argue they're not very common for a reason.

[–] qantravon 34 points 7 months ago (14 children)

Not likely. Your stomach acid probably destroys what's left of the virus before it enters the bloodstream, meaning there's nothing for your immune system to train against. There's a reason we don't drink vaccines.

[–] qantravon -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's just a taxi.

[–] qantravon 35 points 8 months ago

Are you saying that God is canceling Trump now? When did He become so woke!? (/s)

[–] qantravon 4 points 8 months ago

Geez, 2015!? Why the hell did this surface now?

[–] qantravon 85 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think it's ok for them to have stocks, they just should be put into a blind trust to manage, and they shouldn't be able to make any transactions outside of that for the duration of their term in office.

[–] qantravon 17 points 8 months ago

The amount of electoral votes per state is adjusted based on its population, but they all get a minimum of 3. So, if enough people left, it would have some effect on the state's voting power, but once you get to a certain threshold, the weight of each person's vote actually starts to go up.

[–] qantravon 12 points 8 months ago

That's true when a private person sues, but the rules are different for a government entity, which is what's happening here. A sane court system would throw this out and issue some kind of rebuke to the DA who's pressing this, but we don't seem to have one of those

[–] qantravon 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sure how much truth there is to it, but here goes.

The basic idea is that they've convinced themselves that they can get naked together and insert and it's ok, but actively thrusting makes it a sin. So they will get into position and lay still. A friend then bounces the bed, jostling the participants about, and basically making them have sex but "not by their own actions," which somehow makes it all alright in the eyes of God.

[–] qantravon 3 points 8 months ago

First one, then the other.

view more: ‹ prev next ›