>>4146097 (pb)
re: gchq
So, you read an article one time and now you're an expert.
Impressive!
Those bastards….
hoooooboy…
Did he do his job? Yes? No?
There are nasty parts to every job. How you feel about it doesn't really matter, does it?
Look, I'm not a huge fain of GHWB, either. That's a fact, Jack. Never have been, never will be.
At the same time: I had a conversation last night with someone more knowledgable and experienced than I am re: life.
They said something that I've been sort of mulling over: "He was the director of the CIA and of course he did things and/or oversaw things that are incomprehensible to your average desk jockey at an insurance company. The evil he may have done is between him and God."
That has really stuck with me.
Ahhh - vacation tans. Hurts so good.
Once you have "hopes" you can't view things objectively, can you?
she looks like she's having fun! what's the point?
and asphalt. why not?
I doubt it's easy, that's for sure.
Okay - I think I get what you're saying? And I'm legit not trying to be contrarian, just talking out of my fingers: Hope and emotion can't be divorced from each other, I wouldn't think? Hope has a foundation in something, probably an emotion. I do not know.
And what did you hope "elections are safe" meant?
Fair enough. I would actually LOVE to evidence of that having happened. Or someone who can't/won't prove residency in a district being LITERALLY BUZZED with a low key jolt of electricity. Nothing harmful - just uncomfortable. :)
So, we have no idea, yet, what has or hasn't happened wrt. voter fraud. And maybe this was the test - to check for weak points, whatever. If "safe" meant "republicans sweep the board", as it sort of seem some anons did think, then that would be weird and might even suggest some sort of fraud on our side, you know?