If I had to take a (Hollywood inspired) guess; large suitcases with the longer guns partially disassembled. Ammo in a separate bag. Because I’ve never seen a metal detector or X-ray system at a hotel and you can show up with as many bags as you like.
A few thoughts about January 6, 2021
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's probably simpler than that. Most hotels, once you've checked in and have your key card, allow swipe-in access to side doors, which often open directly into the staircases. And most people use the elevators, so just check in with only your bag of clothes, park next to the side door, and you could carry fishing nets full of dead chickens into a hotel room with a low chance of anyone seeing you.
A pretty straightforward rundown of the events outlined in the sedition indictment.
That's an awful lot of planning, training and calls for violence and civil war from a "peaceful tour group".
That's an awful lot of planning, training and calls for violence and civil war from a "peaceful tour group".
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Hotels don't track your comings and goings. Once you've checked in they aren't going to notice if you took 2 bags up to your room or if you carried up 15 bags over the course of the day. Your standard suitcase can probably hold 10 rifles, and you can fit all the ammo for them into a single (very heavy) suitcase. If all your suitcases are on wheels I can easily see someone being able to get 100 rifles into a room by themselves no problem.
Plans to close all but one polling place in a rural Georgia county reverberate through a battleground state
Voting rights activists are closely monitoring takeovers of local election boards in a state that helped decide the presidency and control of the Senate in 2020.
edition.cnn.com
Those good ol' pro-demoracy Republicans.
I mean I think its pretty clear that for Republicans a democracy is a real hinderance to them staying in power. They can't realistically kill all the people they don't want to vote, so they just make sure "those" people can't vote.Plans to close all but one polling place in a rural Georgia county reverberate through a battleground state
Voting rights activists are closely monitoring takeovers of local election boards in a state that helped decide the presidency and control of the Senate in 2020.
Those good ol' pro-demoracy Republicans.
Plans to close all but one polling place in a rural Georgia county reverberate through a battleground state
Voting rights activists are closely monitoring takeovers of local election boards in a state that helped decide the presidency and control of the Senate in 2020.
Those good ol' pro-demoracy Republicans.
Voting rights activists temporarily delay poll closures in Lincoln County
The majority-white, majority Republican rural county planned to move from seven to one polling place because of scarce resources and a change in voter behavior.
Then maybe they need more resources, or another way of voting.
Elections should be about facilitating voting. Closing polling stations and therefore making more disadvantageous or difficult to vote (for instance travel problems, or congestion at polling stations, time taken away from work and loss of earnings, etc.) is de facto taking away people's vote. Clearly there have to be some limits to how much money can be spent on running elections, but excessive thrift is undemocratic.
The latter is going on all over the country, including this county, and is notably ignored by the critics of the consolidation.
Strikes me a great deal of what's been going on over the country is a great deal of "consolidation" of any form of voting. Or to use a term less misleadingly euphemistic than consolidation: "restriction".
It's almost as though major news and media entities consistently coordinate to paint Republicans as evil, and have found "voter suppression" to be an effective angle for demonization.
While this is a shitty pick (no doubt about that), it is worth clarifying that she's donated far more to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and was only nominated by Trump as a half-assed attempt at bipartisanship.
...although, the fact that she donated to both Dems and Reps is cause for pause in itself. Suggests she doesn't actually care about the principles or the platforms, and just wants to purchase goodwill (or have favours owed).
Eh, I just mean that it's slightly off-target to describe her as "GOP donor" without that qualifier. More accurate to call her totally unprincipled. Not an improvement, obviously.
Well, at least she was able to DESTORY those Amazon rainforest, making sure she SENT TO JAIL the lawyer potecting it
It's also just true.
One can make the case that novel ways to facilitate voting have emerged and that ensuring the security of these new systems is reasonable. However, news media aren't lying that Republicans measures focus a great deal more on limiting and shutting them down than constructively addressing concerns or otherwise trying to make them work well. Or even that many of their supposed security measures - which may potentially make it harder to exercise a right to vote - combat forms of fraud that are so rare as to be insignificant, which strongly demands we question what the real rationale is.
It's also noteworthy that these efforts focus disproportionately on minority neighbourhoods, as was the case with the recent spate of station closures we were discussing. For all the talk about how the new centres might be better placed, or provide more freedom if you can go to any station in the county... these factors were true statewide, yet the closures were intensely focused on minority neighbourhoods, regardless of population growth. And it wasn't marginal; the trend was egregious.
It's neither focus nor coincidence. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 contained a provision that required certain states and regions to get federal approval to any change in elections. There is, certainly, an amount of sense in that, as particular states were discriminating against the black population pretty egregiously, and having people oversee changes is the simplest way to avoid that. But the bureaucrats in DC weren't just cautious about changes, they were oppositional to them, for half a century. Do you appreciate how much population centers have moved in the last half century? How big a mess voter rolls can get after decades of neglect? The law froze the south's elections in the year 1965, with exceptional focus on minority areas, which you would never guess are exactly the places that had trouble functioning every election. It's almost as if we've gotten better at running elections since 1965, and refusing to allow changes was a bad idea.
Texas effectively wasn't allowed to reorganize voter precincts in minority areas for 48 years. Now that they can, it's neither surprising nor racially motivated that they are. If you see sudden drops in minority votes, feel free to start complaining, but turnout for racial minorities has increased in each general election in Texas since Shelby County vs Holder, so if it isn't just reasonable election management and it's all actually voter suppression aimed at minorities, it's shockingly incompetent voter suppression.
After the election has taken place, and therefore necessarily after the result has been verified and a Republican has been boosted into office through voter suppression?
Sounds awfully convenient for Republicans.
'Dangerous precedent': Jan. 6 committee trains its sights on false pro-Trump electors
GOP officials in five states illegitimately claimed to be qualified to declare Donald Trump the winner in 2020. And Trump allies were openly involved.
www.politico.com
Rabbit hole. Never ends.
It's funny, after the recent talk about the importance of evidence, that now we hit a situation where evidence is on my side, and your suggestion is that it is bad to even allow the evidence to exist.