If you're like, from a country where that's a capital offense, and you're applying for asylum somewhere...then yes, you would have to prove it. But other than rare occasions like that? No.
Freddy Kruger, as long as I have prep time. Get a good night sleep the night before? Staying awake for 24 hours is pretty trivial. I can get up at 6 one morning and stay up til 6 the next morning. I'm willing to screw my sleep cycle up for a few days in exchange for 3 billion dollars.
I mean, I'm going to remain skeptical of widespread fraud until proven otherwise. The thing that people keep forgetting is that almost all states have some random spot checks built into their vote-counting process. Just as a matter of regular course, they'll randomly select a certain number of ballots and compare the hand-counted and machine-counted results.
Also, fuck Trump, but I don't really see anything odd about the idea that far more people would vote for Trump than a Republican Senate candidate. Trump's whole shtick is getting low-propensity politically disengaged people to vote for him. And look at how low Congress's approval ratings are. A fair number of people coming out just to vote for Trump is not unreasonable.
The point is that if there was malfeasance, it was likely applied by an algorithm in a way that was meant to be non-obvious. But, if you're applying any kind of broad vote-rigging algorithm to vote tallying equipment across the country...well you're going to screw up in some cases.
The idea would be to first find absolute definitive proof of election fraud in one precinct. Once that's been done, you can use those result it justify broader searches. For example, if it's found that this one area has fraud, then the NY legislature might direct funds to do a hand recount of the whole state. And other states can do the same.
Even if it wouldn't revert the presidential election, if fraud is found in house votes, enough blue states might be able to reverse the elections of Republican House members elected by fraud, enough to flip the balance of power in the House. Plus definitive proof of fraud would immediately make Trump lose all political legitimacy, regardless of whether there is any actual legal mechanism to remove a president from power after being proven to be fraudulently elected...well any mechanism beyond the broken impeachment mechanism.
It may just be a factor that a lot of YouTubers don't want to give up creative control. Working with Hollywood ultimately usually means giving up a lot of control on the type and content of your work. They're paying for the big production budget; they get final say in all creative decisions.
YouTubing is a career type that naturally attracts those that want creative independence. And by the time someone would be of the clout to make a deal with a studio or network, they're probably already earning enough money to be making a comfortable living from their work. 10,000-follower YouTube channels aren't getting calls from Discovery, Nickelodian, or Fox News. They're only going to be recruiting from the top channels. And people at that level are probably already earning a nice full-time living. Channels of that level are often entire miniature production companies. The biggest YouTubers aren't individuals, but creative teams.
That's a level of success many people would consider ideal. You get to live comfortably, you get to have a decent amount of social esteem, you get to pursue what projects you want. And you get the personal satisfaction of providing incomes for a whole bunch of your closest colleagues and maybe even closest friends. Many would call that about as perfect a life as there is possible. And you want to maybe give all that up to go work for a cable network?
I suppose for enough money, you could buy people out. But there's more to life than money after all. If you're already living quite comfortably, already very financially secure, would you really want to give up what you have - complete creative independence*, just to make a bit more? YouTube's top ranks are filled with people who left the rat race to get into YouTube. Many simply won't want to go back into that big corporate world, regardless of how gilded their chains may be.
*Obviously, creative independence is relative. All forms of ad-funded content will have to pander to the whims of advertisers. Even completely audience-funded works are subject to the whims of the audience.
It sure would be a shame if, in the bravest act of bravery so far this century, a few patriotic soldiers were to steal some demolition munitions and take out a bridge along the parade route, the night before the parade is to start. Sure would be a shame.
Anyone who thinks undocumented immigrants don't deserve in-state tuition in Texas is a racist bigot. That sounds extreme, but that's really what it comes down to - a fundamental belief that immigrants are not full human beings. There is no motive accept for racial animus behind this. There is no reasonable position to oppose giving them in-state tuition.
Why? BECAUSE TEXAS HAS NO INCOME TAX.
Texas is funded entirely by sales tax, property tax, and various fees. Someone living in Texas illegally pays all the same taxes as someone in the country legally.
Texas is happy to exploit immigrant labor. But they want to be able to use people and then throw them in the landfill when they're done with them. Typical conservatives.
Cute idea. But unfortunately not practical. For something as valuable/kg as cocaine, you can go to the trouble of using a narco sub. But there's zero chance such a sub could practically carry cheap bulky goods like flour, rice, etc.
You might be able to use them to smuggle in medicines though.
Somehow I doubt your sincerity. Most people who bring up women's rights when it comes to Muslims only bring up women's rights when Muslims are involved. Like conservatives who would happily defund every women's sports programs but use women's sports as a cudgel to hurt trans people.
It's really transparent and disingenuous, and you give off those same vibes.
Remember, law enforcement is directly responsible for almost all violence that coincides with protests. The cops will send the entire police force down to harass the protesters. Every pig is a psycho that deep down just wants to beat on some innocent people. So no cop wants to turn down a chance to beat down some peaceful protesters.
With all the cops attending the protest, the rest of the city is now undefended. Looters take advantage of this. Rob a store while all the cops are busy harassing protesters. Police love this as it gives more excuses to increase their budget.
Eisenhower had one option to remove the National Guard from Faubus’s control. The president could issue an executive order based on the Insurrection Act of 1807, codified in Title 10 of the U.S. Code under sections 332 to 334 (since renumbered as 252 to 254). Section 332, regarding the “use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority,”
Trump hasn't invoked the Insurrection Act. He is explicitly in violation of federal law here. The act that he used to activate these troops doesn't allow the president to take authority of the guard away from the governor.
If you're like, from a country where that's a capital offense, and you're applying for asylum somewhere...then yes, you would have to prove it. But other than rare occasions like that? No.