Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

We would just agree to disagree. I know you want in your heart of hearts or Biden to workout because hes not trump. But, he bears responsibility.

---

I want Biden to work out because I want all presidents to work out. We all win when that happens. I wasn't pulling against Trump. He was just bad in all the ways that were apparent before he was ever president. And so is Biden.

We need better options in 2024. The choices shouldn't be a petulant impulsive reality TV buffoon and a mentally impaired geriatric career politician.

---

I Don't!!!

He has no chance of working out and if his policies work out, then we will be living in a different kind of country!!

Werewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

You know, I'm a glutton for punishment...


A Pennsylvania court on Friday ruled that the state's mail-in voting law is unconstitutional.


Three Republican judges ruled that no-excuse mail-in voting is prohibited under the state's constitution. Two Democrats on the panel dissented. Governor Tom Wolf will appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, triggering a stay and leaving the law in place while the high court considers the case.

The Pennsylvania state legislature passed a law in 2019 to allow no-excuse mail voting for all voters.

---

Truth must be defended......the mockers will always be mockers.

---

That's the first court to here the evidence and ruled on something other than standing or laches. It's now been adjudicated by a court!!

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

We would just agree to disagree. I know you want in your heart of hearts or Biden to workout because hes not trump. But, he bears responsibility.

---

I want Biden to work out because I want all presidents to work out. We all win when that happens. I wasn't pulling against Trump. He was just bad in all the ways that were apparent before he was ever president. And so is Biden.

We need better options in 2024. The choices shouldn't be a petulant impulsive reality TV buffoon and a mentally impaired geriatric career politician.

---

No way you wanted Trump to work out!

---

Me and you must have different definitions of "work out."

Nobody rational wants their president to be unsuccessful at effecting the things we each value.

Most who?

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

We would just agree to disagree. I know you want in your heart of hearts or Biden to workout because hes not trump. But, he bears responsibility.

---

I want Biden to work out because I want all presidents to work out. We all win when that happens. I wasn't pulling against Trump. He was just bad in all the ways that were apparent before he was ever president. And so is Biden.

We need better options in 2024. The choices shouldn't be a petulant impulsive reality TV buffoon and a mentally impaired geriatric career politician.

---

I Don't!!!

He has no chance of working out and if his policies work out, then we will be living in a different kind of country!!

---

Exactly, if Biden gets his way, we will start emulating a socialist state. Who wants that?

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

We would just agree to disagree. I know you want in your heart of hearts or Biden to workout because hes not trump. But, he bears responsibility.

---

I want Biden to work out because I want all presidents to work out. We all win when that happens. I wasn't pulling against Trump. He was just bad in all the ways that were apparent before he was ever president. And so is Biden.

We need better options in 2024. The choices shouldn't be a petulant impulsive reality TV buffoon and a mentally impaired geriatric career politician.

---

No way you wanted Trump to work out!

---

Me and you must have different definitions of "work out."

Nobody rational wants their president to be unsuccessful at effecting the things we each value.

---

I stand by my statement.

Werewolf said:

---

GOVT Contractor observes that BIDEN is betraying his country re Illegal Immigrants being flown all over the country.

---

Article 1 in the impeachment process once real Republicans take control of congress in November.

Economists

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

We would just agree to disagree. I know you want in your heart of hearts or Biden to workout because hes not trump. But, he bears responsibility.

---

I want Biden to work out because I want all presidents to work out. We all win when that happens. I wasn't pulling against Trump. He was just bad in all the ways that were apparent before he was ever president. And so is Biden.

We need better options in 2024. The choices shouldn't be a petulant impulsive reality TV buffoon and a mentally impaired geriatric career politician.

---

No way you wanted Trump to work out!

---

Me and you must have different definitions of "work out."

Nobody rational wants their president to be unsuccessful at effecting the things we each value.

---

I stand by my statement.

---

You are correct.

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

We would just agree to disagree. I know you want in your heart of hearts or Biden to workout because hes not trump. But, he bears responsibility.

---

I want Biden to work out because I want all presidents to work out. We all win when that happens. I wasn't pulling against Trump. He was just bad in all the ways that were apparent before he was ever president. And so is Biden.

We need better options in 2024. The choices shouldn't be a petulant impulsive reality TV buffoon and a mentally impaired geriatric career politician.

---

I Don't!!!

He has no chance of working out and if his policies work out, then we will be living in a different kind of country!!

---

Exactly, if Biden gets his way, we will start emulating a socialist state. Who wants that?

---

100%.

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Okay, large scale shutdowns in democratic states like NY, NJ and CA never happened. Not by Biden, but by democrat leadership that has played this have wrong. And you're saying soaring gas prices and labor shortages have no effect? All that money that tit said was needed to jumpstart the economy, how much of it actually went to issues directly related to the problem? Maybe 10% if that? That's a lot of money forced into the economy that adds to inflation.

I agree, inflation was going to happen. But, it hasn't had to last as long or be as bad as is been. He's made it worse.

---

Shutdowns happened in major industries nationwide. That wasn't a phenomenon limited to blue states.

And sure gas prices have an effect but gas prices aren't a one-trick pony. The US has very little to do with global market forces on petroleum or OPEC output, and Biden hasn't implemented policies that curtail current production of oil and gas. Those are primary drivers of gas prices. He has made noise about curtailing future exploration on federal land and he killed the Keystone permit, which gets baked into the market some. I don't think those have had the same effect as the other gas market inputs, especially since the market also bakes in the probability of some of these policy impacts potentially changing depending on who lands in office in 24.

When your economy shrinks 31% in a quarter like ours did in Q2 of 20, talking about inflation is like worrying about a sprained ankle when your hair's on fire.

Fiscal policy isn't a neurosurgeon's scalpel. It's not precise action with highly predictable outcomes. It's a sledgehammer. And the biggest risk was not swinging it hard enough.

We'd have an even bigger problem on our hands if we fell into recession in the midst of a pandemic than we do fighting inflationary pressure. It's not to say it's not a problem; it is. It appears we avoided recession and have some economic momentum; now use the monetary policy and fiscal policy tools available to you to try to pump the brakes a little and bring inflation back in check.

---

So your take is that Biden just inherited a lot of unfortunate circumstances and that hes doing the best he can?

---

I think he is doing the best he can, but that's not actionable information. I don't think anyone becomes president and then goofs off. I think Trump did the best he could. We're all limited and flawed, and those flaws come out in our performances even when we're "doing our best."

My take is that he (and Trump, and every president) should take the blame for things reasonably in their control and not be blamed for forces and events that aren't.

My take is also that these situations are all nuanced and multifactorial.

Examples:

I think it's dumb to blame Biden "for gas prices going up" but fair to blame him for the timing or outcome of the federal land oil and gas exploration lease moratorium or the timing our outcome of the Keystone XL deal. Now's not the time to put upward pressure on gas prices.

I think it's dumb to blame Biden "for inflation." Biden didn't cause production pullbacks amongst OPEC nations; on semiconductors in China and Vietnam; or on lumber in Canada (or the weather or insect impacts to Canadian lumber crops) or many of the other global or domestic supply chain disruptions. It's fair to blame him for increasing Canadian lumber tariffs; the timing of the aforementioned oil/gas policies; for giving out too much cash with the third stimulus (and/or not enough travel vouchers or other non-cash stimulus aimed at the most damaged portions of our economy) or for interest rates probably remaining low a little too long since he doesn't control the Fed.

---

I don't blame Biden for the start of inflation but I do blame him for making it worse by signing a $2T spending bill.

---

Agreed! Some inflation was natural. But, he's made it worse.

Yep that exacerbated it. I maintain there was an intentional erring on the side of inflation to avoid recession.

If you worry about inflation in the midst of a significant COVID economic downturn you risk doing too little, as happened in the Great Recession.

Obviously if you knew in real time how to roll out fiscal policy that stimulated the economy a perfect amount while avoiding both inflation and recession, you'd just do that but it ain't that easy.

As of Noon, 01/20/2022, Buyden is a belligerent occupier, see 11.3 Military Law of War Manual. The time is near.

The Federal Reserve has a major stain on its eye in all this…. Pay attention to what's called "Easy Money"

caryking said:

---

The Federal Reserve has a major stain on its eye in all this…. Pay attention to what's called "Easy Money"

---

I feel really old when I remember thinking that we'd eventually be where we are today when Greenspan decided to print fiat back in '98 to head off the financial crisis of that day. I remember thinking how much better off we'd be if they'd just let market cycles take their natural course, but of course, politics and the Clinton's corrupting influences wouldn't allow that to happen. So much for the "independence" of the Fed.

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Hokie, you should find the segment, from Timcast podcast, that tells how Act 77 came to be. Also, I haven't read the ruling, that stated it was unconstitutional; however, PA has a real issue.

Based on what I know, the PA constitution clearly lays out absentee ballots and Act 77 is in violation of the constitution. Regardless of who voted for Act 77, the act violates the constitution and the only way to change the constitution, in PA, is to put it to the peoples vote (that's my understanding).

If the State Supreme Court overrules the lower court, then the PA constitution means absolutely nothing and it's all political. For that matter, the two Dem judges that didn't support the Republicans, in this ruling, are showing politics as usual. The way I understand it, this is a straight forward, follow the constitution ruling.

Again, based on what I'm hearing, you are falling in the same trap as most everyone that doesn't have the facts. None of us should put our personal beliefs in front of the US or State constitution!!! Regardless of how good a law sounds…

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/01/28/pennsylvania-court-rules-universal-vote-by-mail-unconstitutional/

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Being reported, by who?

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/01/28/pennsylvania-court-rules-universal-vote-by-mail-unconstitutional/

^You can read the Opinion for yourself; pdf embedded in the article.

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Hokie, you should find the segment, from Timcast podcast, that tells how Act 77 came to be. Also, I haven't read the ruling, that stated it was unconstitutional; however, PA has a real issue.

Based on what I know, the PA constitution clearly lays out absentee ballots and Act 77 is in violation of the constitution. Regardless of who voted for Act 77, the act violates the constitution and the only way to change the constitution, in PA, is to put it to the peoples vote (that's my understanding).

If the State Supreme Court overrules the lower court, then the PA constitution means absolutely nothing and it's all political. For that matter, the two Dem judges that didn't support the Republicans, in this ruling, are showing politics as usual. The way I understand it, this is a straight forward, follow the constitution ruling.

Again, based on what I'm hearing, you are falling in the same trap as most everyone that doesn't have the facts. None of us should put our personal beliefs in front of the US or State constitution!!! Regardless of how good a law sounds…

---

I disagree, the premise of the ruling is that mail in voting fall under absentee voting. I don't believe those two are the same thing. Even if it's struck down, all it means is that a constitutional amendment will need to be voted on by the citizens of Pennsylvania. And the law is so popular there, it'll most likely get approved.

Again, none of this show any attempt at election fraud in Pennsylvania. It's a procedural challlenge to a law based on an interpretation on the definition of what absentee voting means, brought on by 11 republicans who when they voted for it thought it was a great idea. Who's showing politics as usual?

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Hokie, you should find the segment, from Timcast podcast, that tells how Act 77 came to be. Also, I haven't read the ruling, that stated it was unconstitutional; however, PA has a real issue.

Based on what I know, the PA constitution clearly lays out absentee ballots and Act 77 is in violation of the constitution. Regardless of who voted for Act 77, the act violates the constitution and the only way to change the constitution, in PA, is to put it to the peoples vote (that's my understanding).

If the State Supreme Court overrules the lower court, then the PA constitution means absolutely nothing and it's all political. For that matter, the two Dem judges that didn't support the Republicans, in this ruling, are showing politics as usual. The way I understand it, this is a straight forward, follow the constitution ruling.

Again, based on what I'm hearing, you are falling in the same trap as most everyone that doesn't have the facts. None of us should put our personal beliefs in front of the US or State constitution!!! Regardless of how good a law sounds…

---

I disagree, the premise of the ruling is that mail in voting fall under absentee voting. I don't believe those two are the same thing. Even if it's struck down, all it means is that a constitutional amendment will need to be voted on by the citizens of Pennsylvania. And the law is so popular there, it'll most likely get approved.

Again, none of this show any attempt at election fraud in Pennsylvania. It's a procedural challlenge to a law based on an interpretation on the definition of what absentee voting means, brought on by 11 republicans who when they voted for it thought it was a great idea. Who's showing politics as usual?

---

LOL....but remember, "based on what he's hearing"...from a bunch of angry podcast gurus. But its most certainly you who's political, not those from whom he's hearing. Those guys aren't political at all, lol.

Uh Oh: Democrats Didn't Realize This Was Embedded in Maricopa County Ballots. I've felt - all along - Az evidence was being slow played to allow the other states to catch up.

https://www.americanlibertyemail.com/articles/uh-oh-democrats-didnt-realize-this-was-embedded-in-maricopa-county-ballots/

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Hokie, you should find the segment, from Timcast podcast, that tells how Act 77 came to be. Also, I haven't read the ruling, that stated it was unconstitutional; however, PA has a real issue.

Based on what I know, the PA constitution clearly lays out absentee ballots and Act 77 is in violation of the constitution. Regardless of who voted for Act 77, the act violates the constitution and the only way to change the constitution, in PA, is to put it to the peoples vote (that's my understanding).

If the State Supreme Court overrules the lower court, then the PA constitution means absolutely nothing and it's all political. For that matter, the two Dem judges that didn't support the Republicans, in this ruling, are showing politics as usual. The way I understand it, this is a straight forward, follow the constitution ruling.

Again, based on what I'm hearing, you are falling in the same trap as most everyone that doesn't have the facts. None of us should put our personal beliefs in front of the US or State constitution!!! Regardless of how good a law sounds…

---

I disagree, the premise of the ruling is that mail in voting fall under absentee voting. I don't believe those two are the same thing. Even if it's struck down, all it means is that a constitutional amendment will need to be voted on by the citizens of Pennsylvania. And the law is so popular there, it'll most likely get approved.

Again, none of this show any attempt at election fraud in Pennsylvania. It's a procedural challlenge to a law based on an interpretation on the definition of what absentee voting means, brought on by 11 republicans who when they voted for it thought it was a great idea. Who's showing politics as usual?

---

Hokie, the PA court ruled that Act 77 was unconstitutional from the very beginning. So, based on that, they have a problem. In fact, it's going to be difficult for the PA Supreme Court to overturn the ruling (although, they probably will).

You are correct, they need to get this on the ballot. BTW, I never said this was election fraud, it is however, a major issue for the 3 November Movement!

You obviously never listen to me…. I have said many times, there are plenty of Republicans that are weak as water! These 11 may very well be some of them or they could have set up the Democrats trying to get something else. I don't know!

Nonetheless, it appears as if nobody follows the constitution!!! That should be sad for you, right?

Agents Challenge Border Patrol Chief over Lax Immigration Policies: 'Good Men Are Doing Nothing'

Quote:

---

On Friday, a group of agents openly challenged the leader of the U.S. Border Patrol, claiming that their hands have been tied by the Biden administration.

Customs and Border Protection officials got into a heated exchange with United States Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz. Frustrated with the constant influx of illegal aliens and lethal narcotics flooding the southern border, many agents indicated they feel powerless to stop the lawlessness due to regulatory limitations based on political correctness rather than reality.

"That's the problem, chief," an agent said. "For evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. That's exactly what's happening here. Good men are doing nothing. You're allowing illegal aliens to be dropped off in communities…"

"Yes, and under a different administration, in the last year, we've had the highest fentanyl deaths in the history of our country. In one year!" an agent reminded.

Ortiz touted that the agency has had record fentanyl seizures this year, to which another agent begged the question: "How many have we not caught? . . . We don't have results!"

---

I am honestly surprised we still have any dedicated men trying to protect our borders given the reckless disregard for our laws as demonstrated by this administration. How can anyone blame these guys for being frustrated?

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Hokie, you should find the segment, from Timcast podcast, that tells how Act 77 came to be. Also, I haven't read the ruling, that stated it was unconstitutional; however, PA has a real issue.

Based on what I know, the PA constitution clearly lays out absentee ballots and Act 77 is in violation of the constitution. Regardless of who voted for Act 77, the act violates the constitution and the only way to change the constitution, in PA, is to put it to the peoples vote (that's my understanding).

If the State Supreme Court overrules the lower court, then the PA constitution means absolutely nothing and it's all political. For that matter, the two Dem judges that didn't support the Republicans, in this ruling, are showing politics as usual. The way I understand it, this is a straight forward, follow the constitution ruling.

Again, based on what I'm hearing, you are falling in the same trap as most everyone that doesn't have the facts. None of us should put our personal beliefs in front of the US or State constitution!!! Regardless of how good a law sounds…

---

I disagree, the premise of the ruling is that mail in voting fall under absentee voting. I don't believe those two are the same thing. Even if it's struck down, all it means is that a constitutional amendment will need to be voted on by the citizens of Pennsylvania. And the law is so popular there, it'll most likely get approved.

Again, none of this show any attempt at election fraud in Pennsylvania. It's a procedural challlenge to a law based on an interpretation on the definition of what absentee voting means, brought on by 11 republicans who when they voted for it thought it was a great idea. Who's showing politics as usual?

---

Hokie, the PA court ruled that Act 77 was unconstitutional from the very beginning. So, based on that, they have a problem. In fact, it's going to be difficult for the PA Supreme Court to overturn the ruling (although, they probably will).

You are correct, they need to get this on the ballot. BTW, I never said this was election fraud, it is however, a major issue for the 3 November Movement!

You obviously never listen to me…. I have said many times, there are plenty of Republicans that are weak as water! These 11 may very well be some of them or they could have set up the Democrats trying to get something else. I don't know!

Nonetheless, it appears as if nobody follows the constitution!!! That should be sad for you, right?

---

maybe I don't know, there was bipartisan compromise for this legislation, you know compromise, what grown up legislators do.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Hokie, you should find the segment, from Timcast podcast, that tells how Act 77 came to be. Also, I haven't read the ruling, that stated it was unconstitutional; however, PA has a real issue.

Based on what I know, the PA constitution clearly lays out absentee ballots and Act 77 is in violation of the constitution. Regardless of who voted for Act 77, the act violates the constitution and the only way to change the constitution, in PA, is to put it to the peoples vote (that's my understanding).

If the State Supreme Court overrules the lower court, then the PA constitution means absolutely nothing and it's all political. For that matter, the two Dem judges that didn't support the Republicans, in this ruling, are showing politics as usual. The way I understand it, this is a straight forward, follow the constitution ruling.

Again, based on what I'm hearing, you are falling in the same trap as most everyone that doesn't have the facts. None of us should put our personal beliefs in front of the US or State constitution!!! Regardless of how good a law sounds…

---

I disagree, the premise of the ruling is that mail in voting fall under absentee voting. I don't believe those two are the same thing. Even if it's struck down, all it means is that a constitutional amendment will need to be voted on by the citizens of Pennsylvania. And the law is so popular there, it'll most likely get approved.

Again, none of this show any attempt at election fraud in Pennsylvania. It's a procedural challlenge to a law based on an interpretation on the definition of what absentee voting means, brought on by 11 republicans who when they voted for it thought it was a great idea. Who's showing politics as usual?

---

Hokie, the PA court ruled that Act 77 was unconstitutional from the very beginning. So, based on that, they have a problem. In fact, it's going to be difficult for the PA Supreme Court to overturn the ruling (although, they probably will).

You are correct, they need to get this on the ballot. BTW, I never said this was election fraud, it is however, a major issue for the 3 November Movement!

You obviously never listen to me…. I have said many times, there are plenty of Republicans that are weak as water! These 11 may very well be some of them or they could have set up the Democrats trying to get something else. I don't know!

Nonetheless, it appears as if nobody follows the constitution!!! That should be sad for you, right?

---

maybe I don't know, there was bipartisan compromise for this legislation, you know compromise, what grown up legislators do.

---

I do not want bipartisan legislation. Typically, that means we aren't focusing on constitutional governess. Also, look at our current deficit, plus the 28T in debt from bipartisanship!

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Hokie, you should find the segment, from Timcast podcast, that tells how Act 77 came to be. Also, I haven't read the ruling, that stated it was unconstitutional; however, PA has a real issue.

Based on what I know, the PA constitution clearly lays out absentee ballots and Act 77 is in violation of the constitution. Regardless of who voted for Act 77, the act violates the constitution and the only way to change the constitution, in PA, is to put it to the peoples vote (that's my understanding).

If the State Supreme Court overrules the lower court, then the PA constitution means absolutely nothing and it's all political. For that matter, the two Dem judges that didn't support the Republicans, in this ruling, are showing politics as usual. The way I understand it, this is a straight forward, follow the constitution ruling.

Again, based on what I'm hearing, you are falling in the same trap as most everyone that doesn't have the facts. None of us should put our personal beliefs in front of the US or State constitution!!! Regardless of how good a law sounds…

---

I disagree, the premise of the ruling is that mail in voting fall under absentee voting. I don't believe those two are the same thing. Even if it's struck down, all it means is that a constitutional amendment will need to be voted on by the citizens of Pennsylvania. And the law is so popular there, it'll most likely get approved.

Again, none of this show any attempt at election fraud in Pennsylvania. It's a procedural challlenge to a law based on an interpretation on the definition of what absentee voting means, brought on by 11 republicans who when they voted for it thought it was a great idea. Who's showing politics as usual?

---

Hokie, the PA court ruled that Act 77 was unconstitutional from the very beginning. So, based on that, they have a problem. In fact, it's going to be difficult for the PA Supreme Court to overturn the ruling (although, they probably will).

You are correct, they need to get this on the ballot. BTW, I never said this was election fraud, it is however, a major issue for the 3 November Movement!

You obviously never listen to me…. I have said many times, there are plenty of Republicans that are weak as water! These 11 may very well be some of them or they could have set up the Democrats trying to get something else. I don't know!

Nonetheless, it appears as if nobody follows the constitution!!! That should be sad for you, right?

---

maybe I don't know, there was bipartisan compromise for this legislation, you know compromise, what grown up legislators do.

---

I do not want bipartisan legislation. Typically, that means we aren't focusing on constitutional governess. Also, look at our current deficit, plus the 28T in debt from bipartisanship!

---

our current debt is due to the fact that we as voters currently reward the loud mouths of each party rather than legislators who actually want to do the job.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

40% of the votes counted in Pennsylvania are being reported as unconstitutional.

---

Oh, you mean Act 77 that was passed by the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature? Then 11 of those evil election stealing republicans sued to repeal that same law they hailed as "the most significant modernization of election law in Pennsylvania history." You should go read the legislation and the court ruling.

The state Supreme Court will most likely overturn this ruling.

Again, this isn't evidence of election fraud. This is a question of whether this law applies to one section or another of the state constitution.

The fact that republicans crafted this law and then saw no issue with it until after the 2020 election is the height of hypocrisy.

---

Hokie, you should find the segment, from Timcast podcast, that tells how Act 77 came to be. Also, I haven't read the ruling, that stated it was unconstitutional; however, PA has a real issue.

Based on what I know, the PA constitution clearly lays out absentee ballots and Act 77 is in violation of the constitution. Regardless of who voted for Act 77, the act violates the constitution and the only way to change the constitution, in PA, is to put it to the peoples vote (that's my understanding).

If the State Supreme Court overrules the lower court, then the PA constitution means absolutely nothing and it's all political. For that matter, the two Dem judges that didn't support the Republicans, in this ruling, are showing politics as usual. The way I understand it, this is a straight forward, follow the constitution ruling.

Again, based on what I'm hearing, you are falling in the same trap as most everyone that doesn't have the facts. None of us should put our personal beliefs in front of the US or State constitution!!! Regardless of how good a law sounds…

---

I disagree, the premise of the ruling is that mail in voting fall under absentee voting. I don't believe those two are the same thing. Even if it's struck down, all it means is that a constitutional amendment will need to be voted on by the citizens of Pennsylvania. And the law is so popular there, it'll most likely get approved.

Again, none of this show any attempt at election fraud in Pennsylvania. It's a procedural challlenge to a law based on an interpretation on the definition of what absentee voting means, brought on by 11 republicans who when they voted for it thought it was a great idea. Who's showing politics as usual?

---

Hokie, the PA court ruled that Act 77 was unconstitutional from the very beginning. So, based on that, they have a problem. In fact, it's going to be difficult for the PA Supreme Court to overturn the ruling (although, they probably will).

You are correct, they need to get this on the ballot. BTW, I never said this was election fraud, it is however, a major issue for the 3 November Movement!

You obviously never listen to me…. I have said many times, there are plenty of Republicans that are weak as water! These 11 may very well be some of them or they could have set up the Democrats trying to get something else. I don't know!

Nonetheless, it appears as if nobody follows the constitution!!! That should be sad for you, right?

---

maybe I don't know, there was bipartisan compromise for this legislation, you know compromise, what grown up legislators do.

---

I do not want bipartisan legislation. Typically, that means we aren't focusing on constitutional governess. Also, look at our current deficit, plus the 28T in debt from bipartisanship!

---

our current debt is due to the fact that we as voters currently reward the loud mouths of each party rather than legislators who actually want to do the job.

---

ok

Leader of the free world, cut off by his handlers again. What an embarrassment.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-presser-ends-abruptly-when-biden-solicits-question-from-utah-gov-and-handlers-rush-press-out-of-room/