funhusker Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 23 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-chaos-in-pennsylvania-voting-11600469196?mod=article_inline Okay? So they ruled on what’s permitted under the law. Maybe I missed something later in the article since I’m not a subscriber. Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 I think I've found a definition of gaslighting we can all agree on: 4 Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: The fact that you have to ask that question is disturbing How so? Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 1 hour ago, funhusker said: Okay? So they ruled on what’s permitted under the law. Maybe I missed something later in the article since I’m not a subscriber. No they changed the election law 1 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 44 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: No they changed the election law How so? Like I said, I couldn’t read it all. But what I did read said there was a lawsuit to extend voting access and they ruled it as legal. How does a court “change” a law? 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, funhusker said: How so? Like I said, I couldn’t read it all. But what I did read said there was a lawsuit to extend voting access and they ruled it as legal. How does a court “change” a law? https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2020/10/judge-asked-to-block-state-election-changes/ 1 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted May 25, 2021 Author Share Posted May 25, 2021 13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2020/10/judge-asked-to-block-state-election-changes/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/news/2020/11/federal-appeals-court-refuses-to-void-pas-three-day-extension-for-receiving-mail-in-ballots.html%3foutputType=amp Not sure what your point is. Are you going to try to take this to the Supreme Court and go what, 0-69 or 0-70? I've lost track. You and your peeps need to get over it. It's stalkerish. Or is this going to devolve into the "fake judiciary" meme. 2 Link to comment
funhusker Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 37 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2020/10/judge-asked-to-block-state-election-changes/ Again, this article mentions how the court ruled and its interpretation of the law(s). How did the court “change” the Pennsylvania Act 77? edited for more detail... 1 Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Archy1221 said: No they changed the election law Whatever the method, it was legal. And the court agreed. So my point is, why are some republicans up in arms about something that was done during a pandemic that made it easier for people to exercise their constitutional rights and was in accordance with the rule of law. You would agree the bold phrases are often used to support other arguments from the right, correct? Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Scarlet said: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/news/2020/11/federal-appeals-court-refuses-to-void-pas-three-day-extension-for-receiving-mail-in-ballots.html%3foutputType=amp Not sure what your point is. Are you going to try to take this to the Supreme Court and go what, 0-69 or 0-70? I've lost track. You and your peeps need to get over it. It's stalkerish. Or is this going to devolve into the "fake judiciary" meme. I’m not gonna do anything and your not even following the conversation @funhusker and I having which doesn’t surprise me. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 looks like the trumpsters are still trying to litigate the last election without actually taking anything to court with them to prove their case. i thought most of them were over trump when he took nothing to court besides allegations 2 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 The question McCarthy and his fellow Republican leaders have to ask themselves at this point is this: Is it worth leading a party that stands for nothing outside of total and utter loyalty to a single man -- and which is unwilling to strongly condemn clear intolerance and ignorance? Is leading that empty shell leadership at all? 1 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted May 25, 2021 Author Share Posted May 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Archy1221 said: I’m not gonna do anything and your not even following the conversation @funhusker and I having which doesn’t surprise me. That's a conversation? All I see on your end are opaque answers or links behind a paywall which doesn't surprise me. 4 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted May 25, 2021 Author Share Posted May 25, 2021 1 hour ago, DevoHusker said: The question McCarthy and his fellow Republican leaders have to ask themselves at this point is this: Is it worth leading a party that stands for nothing outside of total and utter loyalty to a single man -- and which is unwilling to strongly condemn clear intolerance and ignorance? Is leading that empty shell leadership at all? Why do you think it is that they won't condemn her considering she's not a rising star, wields no power, and doesn't speak to the base? 3 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 8 hours ago, Scarlet said: Why do you think it is that they won't condemn her considering she's not a rising star, wields no power, and doesn't speak to the base? They explain that in the article. This is a quote from it. It covers the face that she doesn't have power, or speak for the base, and yet R leaders have yet to censure her...and the dichotomy of that. Link to comment
Recommended Posts