LethalSmack

I had the same question. I’m hoping the line shows total votes and the bars will increase as in person votes are added to the total

While that’s a fair point, it’s not the only example of planning ahead. I’m sure there’s plenty of other ways than the ones I came up with in a few seconds.

They could also pick a drive throughs that have enough room to leave the line. Less common in cities but they’re still there.

Edit: I’d also like to point out that their lights and sirens are designed specifically to get people’s attention and get them moved out of the way. More difficult if you’re trying to get a vehicle 10 cars up to move but it’s not like they’re stuck waiting like the rest of us would be.

Non emergency needs are not an excuse for illegal behavior.

If it’s that critical that they remain close to their vehicle then they should plan better. I.e. a drive through, coffee shop with parking, thermos full of coffee, have two officers per vehicle and one stays with the car, etc.

‘Kamala didn’t rebuke genocide strongly enough, so I’ll support the candidate that unabashedly supports and encourages genocide!’

That is my understanding of your view based on the last two comments. Good luck with stopping the murder spree that way

Edit: I’m all for better options. It’s just quite disingenuous to say you won’t vote for the only candidate that’s rebuffed Israel over the genocide when the competition is actively supporting it.

I’m curious, what do you think of Trumps approach to Israel’s genocide? Is their plan better?

That’s fair. Maybe more reasonable than it first appeared.

Oof, 15 to 30 years seems a bit much.

Davis’s family asserts Kruger and Davis were in a years-long relationship involving sex and drugs that started when Davis was 15 years old, and Kruger was an adult.

You’ve claimed several points that conflict and when asked directly what your point is you talk around it.

My point was Bernie got cheated out of that primary election

Your point was that the primary was above board and there was no reason to question it

Then you later agreed that there was good reason to question it

And now your point is that your point is clear?

Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.

Your initial statement was clear but your subsequent comments across threads have not been.

It went from the primary was clear and upstanding, to there’s good reason to doubt the results, to it having no real effect other than some nasty words spoken, to it costing Hilary the election.

Which one is your actual point?

So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences? Or are those consequences not concrete enough?

Or are you saying we should accept their schemes, offer no consequences or criticism and just blindly follow?

Cause I certainly agree that we likely wouldn’t be in the current situation if the DNC had been above board and true to their role.

And that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him

Have you read your other replies? Thats not the understanding I got from them.