Best interview I’ve seen yet of S’Pow!
She’s starting to thread it together in public. Brought out the point that votes were counted in Spain, violating an export-related EO (I’ll find the #).
The fact that the electronic votes could be “aligned” with the paper is so grossly naive that the clause could only be a thin veneer for residual criminal activity. So so so much wrong with that. Such a reconciliation process needs to be far more traceable, and frankly, difficult, than that.
Bastards bastards bastards.
Is there now not enough evidence to prove an overt act(s) have been committed to prove a conspiracy to defraud even when the act has gone beyond the conspire part to the actual act of committing an offense if you get my drift? What is the penalty for treason in the States these days?
OK, got it now. I was thinking strictly in terms of bringing the software IN to the US, hence importing. But your point of export is an even better one, and it calls into serious question how any pronouncement could be made in good faith that there was not and could not have been any IT hanky panky in this election by the cyber whores who declared all was well.
It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. I witnessed the SS Pony Wars where every discussion ended with a flipped chessboard and a dozen Cute Pony Images. Been there, done that. I know where that Fuckoff Bucket is if I wanna relive that nausea.
s/Rapture/Krackening/
I know why you are still here rather than at Rip's personal Fuckoff Bucket, Mr Mueller. This place is one of the last Churches of Freedom on the Net. You didn't come here to knock this Church down, did you? You believe in Freedom from Tyranny too.
I know you are a good man, Mr Mueller. A very very dark force is finally being dismantled, and deep inside...you know this to be true. If you reach out, Freedom will accept you forever more. Want me to do it with you?
Nobody moves that book. Nobody. No sir. Do I hear somebody say Amen?
The Danish randomized controlled trial on masks is finally published: ACP Journals
From their abstract:
It's an intent-to-treat analysis, but still compelling. The conclusions appear to be similar in subgroup analyses (comparing only adherers to control). Worth reading the study in full.A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.