1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is unprecedented for BC. It's not like the temperature records in BC were broken by just a degree or two. On Vancouver Island the previous record was 29.5 degrees. Now they reached almost 40 degrees. There are dozens of other examples like this in BC.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/59-temperature-records-broken-in-a-single-day-as-b-c-swelters-under-heat-dome-1.5488672

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

If its so easy to alter the climate why not test you theory on the moon or mars.

Because neither of these have what would be considered an atmosphere. The moon doesn't have one at all and the Mars atmosphere is almost non existent. It has about 1% of the density of the Earth's atmosphere.

If its so easy to alter the climate why not test you theory on the moon or mars..

You will be worried when hundreds of millions of Pajeets lose their freshwater source and start moving to Canada.

-2
RightOfSask -2 points ago +1 / -3

I heard exactly the same statement ushered by some Antifa kids.

-4
RightOfSask -4 points ago +1 / -5

That's why the world prospered so much under Christian ideology until the 20th century when the Freemasons began to infiltrate the different sects and promote liberalism.

The world started to prosper in the 20th century. For the most time before that the Christian Churches were responsible for holding back progress in the Western World.

3
RightOfSask 3 points ago +3 / -0

If Trudeau calls the election while Bernier is at 4% or higher in the polls, then you can bet on that.

6
RightOfSask 6 points ago +6 / -0

Bad news for Benrier, but even worse news for Trudeau

It's good news for Bernier. The former rules were that two of these three criteria have to be met:

  • party is represented in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament
  • the Commissioner considers that the party intends to endorse candidates in at least 90% of electoral districts
  • the party's candidates for the most recent general election received at that election at least 4% of the number of valid votes cast or based on the recent political context, public opinion polls and previous general election results, the Commissioner considers that candidates endorsed by the party have a legitimate chance to be elected in the general election in question

Now to participate only one criteria of these three has to be met:

  • represented in the House of Commons by someone initially elected under the party banner
  • a party’s candidates had to receive at least four per cent of the number of valid votes cast in the 2019 election
  • have public opinion polls show it has at least four per cent of national support five days after the election date is called

It's easier for Bernier to participate now under the new rules, because all he has to do is to get 4% in the polls, nothing else. With the old rules he wouldn't have a chance to participate.

9
RightOfSask 9 points ago +9 / -0

One side stopping donations because they are considering to change the name.

The other side stopping donations because they didn't do it yet.

Wonderful. Identity politics tearing apart old institutions left and right.

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Edison and AP provide APIs for news companies. These two companies collect individually election results. They have people phoning and/or going from polling station to polling station/election board to get the numbers. Then companies like CNN or Fox can just get it through an web interface.

https://www.edisonresearch.com/election-polling/#two

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, my position is that the company who provides news websites with election results (speak Edison or AP) fucked up. These companies go around and ask the polling stations and elections of boards of thousands of counties in the US for millions of data points. If you tell me that this happens without any single error, then you might be retarded.

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

Then how did they switch votes? Did they sharpie over Trump's name with Biden?

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

The person who typed in the numbers corrected it.

It would make no sense if there wouldn't be an error if people literally type in manually millions of data points. If there would have been zero errors, then you could speak of a manipulated election.

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

but you say is normal.

Manually accumulating million of data points without error would be NOT normal.

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

The old one in November? Yes.

This one the article talks about was another interview of him later this year, where he waked it all back a second time. That he never heard something about ballots being backdated.

Hopkins "acknowledged that he had no evidence of any backdated presidential ballots and could not recall any specific words said by the postmaster or supervisor,"

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

the russian hoax was disputed.

As are Trump's election voter fraud claims. If he had real evidence, he would literally pay his lawyers to present them in a court. Well, not even in a court. Just in public. Be he doesn't do that, because he has nothing.

2
RightOfSask 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bullshit arbitrary rules for bullshit arbitrary evidence. We have the same standard.

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fake story because you don't want it to be true.

https://abc30.com/richard-hopkins-recant-recants-did-postal-worker/7866677/

And he's being also sued right now by the postmaster of Erie.

and where did he said he never heard them but thought they would say something like that?

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/nation/usps-mail-ballot-fraud-erie-investigation-20210318.html

" In an interview with federal agents, Hopkins "revised his initial claims, eventually stating that he had not heard a conversation about ballots at all — rather he saw the Postmaster and Supervisor having a discussion and assumed it was about fraudulent ballot backdating," the report states."

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

If he didn't win, he wouldn't be president. In 2016 the Democrats "disputed" the election with their Russia hoax. Seems like Trump didn't win either by your definition.

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

the postal worker from the veritas clip, you believe he's lying?

He recanted his story. He went from "I heard these people talking about backdating ballots" to "I didn't hear them, but I think they would talk about something like that".

Why should I believe him when he switches from one story to another, depending on who he is talking to?

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

so wait and see

Same goes for you. You will wait and see how one after the another rescinds their claims against Dominion.

Oh, and OAN also rescinded their claims.

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, my personal opinion is that Biden won and all the voter fraud he claimed (from Dominion switching votes to fake ballots in Arizona) have never been proven. Show real evidence, then I will believe him. But if you have crowds in Arizona scanning the ballots for bamboo fibers while running out of ideas for what they are even searching for, I doubt that this "evidence" will ever show up.

1
RightOfSask 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yet somehow they still shill for him.

What about OAN? They have billions and billions in backing. Aren't they rich enough? Even Lindell which has far less money is able to afford to take them on.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›