>>12886048

but we still have We the People

so what is the solution?

voter verify.

as there is a 'consent decree' that someone made up and put in the law (but seems like it was made up) why not have a "we do not consent" decree and register what our real idea is about the people who supposedly won.

it would be a 'revote' .

a 'we do not consent' decree

would that work, Scott?

obviously it would need to be low-pass filtered.

a recall could happen very quickly.

likity split.

so it can't keep happening over and over.

National 'we do not consent' registry . . .

?

verified by many different methods . . .

instead of a monopoly of voter fraud and fraudsters ruling, the vote would have to be decoupled from the count.

and none of the people who count should even know who the candidates are or what the parties are. (how would we accomplish that?)

how does the phone company know to send you the bill and how much it is exactly everymonth, and it's you? and you get it every month?

why cnt voting me as easy as 'auto pay'

you set you choice for congreess or local-office holder, and if they displease you, you select someone else from the list.

no office would have just one face, but some faces would have far more support.

select from a list of choices, or put yourself up to be a choice!

could it be that easy?

and if not, then why not?

>>12886210

does he do a podcast?

who is he?

a gamer?

>>12886219

those of us who are not simulants don't notice anything different when you reset.

off is good too. try that one.

>>12886238

you're not sharing a link?

>>12886253

> c274ae

we should be able to bill them for the cycles they use on our processors.

someone do a class action suit?

>>12886334

TY.