Message from @Tneedels

Discord ID: 787537613799948289


2020-12-13 04:30:38 UTC  

That they started and didn’t finish

2020-12-13 04:30:50 UTC  

first president from outside of politics and a billionaire that cant be bought and paid for, thats who i voted for over the 50yr corrupt flip flopping politician that had open brain surgery

2020-12-13 04:30:51 UTC  

That judge ruled in favor, and accepted the on the basis that it would "likely win"

2020-12-13 04:30:52 UTC  

@james j They lost under a provision that does not apply to persons that are enemies of the nation.

2020-12-13 04:31:05 UTC  

@AOH_Assassin do you accept the official pa site?

2020-12-13 04:31:07 UTC  

then the pennsylvania supreme court stepped in, took it from her, and dismissed because of latches

2020-12-13 04:31:27 UTC  

Act 77 was a statute. It was never an amendment.

2020-12-13 04:31:29 UTC  

@james j It is an illegal and unconstitutional law.

2020-12-13 04:31:40 UTC  

They lost under the bill of which they filed, making it a technical not marital

2020-12-13 04:31:45 UTC  

Act 77 doesn't have shit on

2020-12-13 04:31:50 UTC  

The Pennsylvania Constitution

2020-12-13 04:31:51 UTC  

Check out the Nevada case, if you are so sure.

2020-12-13 04:31:58 UTC  

And not even close to the Amendments

2020-12-13 04:32:06 UTC  

The party’s affiliation with regard to the law passed does not invalidate arguments about constitutionality

2020-12-13 04:32:14 UTC  

And if you truly believe that an act passed a year ago touches teh Constitution, you're worse than i thought

2020-12-13 04:32:48 UTC  

@Whithers no it’s a law the PA gop started and never finished. That’s why it’s unconstitutional under state law. However the remedy the asked for was ridiculous. And they lost to laches. Because they had a year to address it and had a election under the GOP rules

2020-12-13 04:32:50 UTC  

Is there a list of the cases somewhere along with some analysis of what occurred in the cases?

2020-12-13 04:32:50 UTC  

@Whithers Im not starting anything. Sorry. I am looking for a person to explain to me why they voted FOR someone, as opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils. I think we can conclude I still have not found such a person.

2020-12-13 04:33:18 UTC  

I have watched it all. Read the dockets, Researched what I didn't know. Watched this guy's interpretation. Asked a relative who is a federal attorney. And read some more.

2020-12-13 04:33:30 UTC  

You’re attacking people’s credentials because you don’t have a response

2020-12-13 04:33:31 UTC  

All i'm saying, do yourself a favor, a research what you're speaking

2020-12-13 04:33:31 UTC  

@AOH_Assassin it’s important Becuase it’s trumps party making the claim. They caused it then complained about it when their guy lost. They had a year to fix it

2020-12-13 04:33:34 UTC  

i repeat... first president from outside of politics and a billionaire that cant be bought and paid for, thats who i voted for over the 50yr corrupt flip flopping politician that had open brain surgery

2020-12-13 04:33:42 UTC  

You want to hold the remedy ridiculous because you want the USA to be suborned under China.

2020-12-13 04:33:55 UTC  

@Ghostdog exactly!

2020-12-13 04:34:04 UTC  

fearless, arrogant, human, not a puppter

2020-12-13 04:34:13 UTC  

I'm right here @Doc I voted for a third party candidate who I think would make an excellent president but had no chance in you know where of getting elected.

2020-12-13 04:34:22 UTC  

@Whithers no I’m not worried about China

2020-12-13 04:34:43 UTC  

@meglide right. I dont know that candidate.

2020-12-13 04:35:11 UTC  

@james j I thought you were lefty?

2020-12-13 04:35:16 UTC  

@james j Of course you are not, China is who you wish to have rule over US.

2020-12-13 04:35:16 UTC  

China should scare you to death.

2020-12-13 04:35:23 UTC  

IDK they're taking shit over quickly, and strategically, because they were allowed to learn our shit at faults of biden, obama, and biden

2020-12-13 04:35:23 UTC  

@Tneedels, you just advanced to level 5!

2020-12-13 04:35:28 UTC  

The Republicans used Act 77 as a basis for opposing the temporary changes the SotC Boockvar implemented. They never once asserted that it was unconstitutional in the run-up to the election. Quite the opposite. It was only after Trump lost that they tried to claim it was unconstitutional. Both cases were allowed to stand - a 4-4 tie pre-election and unanimously without dissent by a 6-3 majority Conservative Court.

2020-12-13 04:35:32 UTC  

Because she had no chance. I'm a dreamer I guess about to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

2020-12-13 04:35:49 UTC  

@meglide I understand that much better.

2020-12-13 04:35:54 UTC  

It makes sense.

2020-12-13 04:36:03 UTC  

Not to mention, when I was a kid, my father told me that China had a large enough army that they could march it into the ocean 1 mile wide, and NEVER run out. Literally.