ciscopack said:

---

Biden's margin of victory widens as Trump's subversion efforts grow more frantic

President-elect Joe Biden's margin of victory over President Donald Trump surpassed 6 million votes on Friday, as ballots continue to be counted across the nation. (> 6,000,000)

More than the number of people in South Carolina or Wisconsin or Colorado or Alabama or Louisiana or somewhere around the #19 or #20 populated state in the nation.

---

Wonder how many of them were legal?

Big news.

Absolutely better late than never.

And this why the Republicans believe the election was stolen. People are being harassed into given in to the MOB! This is the same as the Wayne County Board of Canvassers...

caryking said:

---

And this why the Republicans believe the election was stolen. People are being harassed into given in to the MOB! This is the same as the Wayne County Board of Canvassers...

---

It's insane to me that a non-elected official has the power to delay a transition of power or even to (seemingly) start one without incumbent consent if circumstances were different. Definitely agree with her that congress needs to amend that Act.

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

Biden's margin of victory widens as Trump's subversion efforts grow more frantic

President-elect Joe Biden's margin of victory over President Donald Trump surpassed 6 million votes on Friday, as ballots continue to be counted across the nation. (> 6,000,000)

More than the number of people in South Carolina or Wisconsin or Colorado or Alabama or Louisiana or somewhere around the #19 or #20 populated state in the nation.

---

Wonder how many of them were legal?

---

Trump's election fight includes over 30 lawsuits. It's not going well.

It's insane to me that we have so many non-elected officials! 2020 revenue receipts are to be 3.7 trillion. The largest amount ever! We are still running a deficit; so, that tells me (CLEARLY) we have a spending problem!

So, rather than calling out a single person because they are holding up something you want, please call out the whole damn system. It's completely out of control!

ciscopack said:

---

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

Biden's margin of victory widens as Trump's subversion efforts grow more frantic

President-elect Joe Biden's margin of victory over President Donald Trump surpassed 6 million votes on Friday, as ballots continue to be counted across the nation. (> 6,000,000)

More than the number of people in South Carolina or Wisconsin or Colorado or Alabama or Louisiana or somewhere around the #19 or #20 populated state in the nation.

---

Wonder how many of them were legal?

---

Trump's election fight includes over 30 lawsuits. It's not going well.

---

Cisco, settle down... let it play out. District courts are throwing out everything; however, as it moves up the chain, these will either change or follow the same ruling. No one knows what will happen there...

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

Biden's margin of victory widens as Trump's subversion efforts grow more frantic

President-elect Joe Biden's margin of victory over President Donald Trump surpassed 6 million votes on Friday, as ballots continue to be counted across the nation. (> 6,000,000)

More than the number of people in South Carolina or Wisconsin or Colorado or Alabama or Louisiana or somewhere around the #19 or #20 populated state in the nation.

---

Wonder how many of them were legal?

---

Trump's election fight includes over 30 lawsuits. It's not going well.

---

Cisco, settle down... let it play out. District courts are throwing out everything; however, as it moves up the chain, these will either change or follow the same ruling. No one knows what will happen there...

---

Caryking this is over. I understand you want to hold onto any glimmer of hope. The reason the court cases are getting throwed out or dismissed is because there is no evidence to support Trump's claims of widespread fraud. As matter of fact Rudy said in court this was not a fraud case. Because even he can't lie in court.

I mean if you want to see it play out. Go right ahead. No one can or should stop you. However the majority of Americans have moved on. Why is this presidential election any different than any of the past? Because this president is being the spoiled child he always acts like! The margin he lost this election by is more than he can make up. It will not go to the Supreme court. No red state legislature is going to save him by going against the will of voters. But you go right ahead and let it play out for you.

Even the Newsmax CEO admits the claims of fraud promoted on their channel are not based on evidence. He defends it as people's opinions and they are not stating it as fact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/newsmax-ceo-says-its-coverage-is-not-accurate-they-have-no-evidence-of-election-fraud/ar-BB1blBn2

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

Biden's margin of victory widens as Trump's subversion efforts grow more frantic

President-elect Joe Biden's margin of victory over President Donald Trump surpassed 6 million votes on Friday, as ballots continue to be counted across the nation. (> 6,000,000)

More than the number of people in South Carolina or Wisconsin or Colorado or Alabama or Louisiana or somewhere around the #19 or #20 populated state in the nation.

---

Wonder how many of them were legal?

---

Trump's election fight includes over 30 lawsuits. It's not going well.

---

Cisco, settle down... let it play out. District courts are throwing out everything; however, as it moves up the chain, these will either change or follow the same ruling. No one knows what will happen there...

---

Caryking this is over. I understand you want to hold onto any glimmer of hope. The reason the court cases are getting throwed out or dismissed is because there is no evidence to support Trump's claims of widespread fraud. As matter of fact Rudy said in court this was not a fraud case. Because even he can't lie in court.

I mean if you want to see it play out. Go right ahead. No one can or should stop you. However the majority of Americans have moved on. Why is this presidential election any different than any of the past? Because this president is being the spoiled child he always acts like! The margin he lost this election by is more than he can make up. It will not go to the Supreme court. No red state legislature is going to save him by going against the will of voters. But you go right ahead and let it play out for you.

---

Ok...

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

Tyranny of the minority.

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

Biden's margin of victory widens as Trump's subversion efforts grow more frantic

President-elect Joe Biden's margin of victory over President Donald Trump surpassed 6 million votes on Friday, as ballots continue to be counted across the nation. (> 6,000,000)

More than the number of people in South Carolina or Wisconsin or Colorado or Alabama or Louisiana or somewhere around the #19 or #20 populated state in the nation.

---

Wonder how many of them were legal?

---

Trump's election fight includes over 30 lawsuits. It's not going well.

---

Cisco, settle down... let it play out. District courts are throwing out everything; however, as it moves up the chain, these will either change or follow the same ruling. No one knows what will happen there...

---

Caryking this is over. I understand you want to hold onto any glimmer of hope. The reason the court cases are getting throwed out or dismissed is because there is no evidence to support Trump's claims of widespread fraud. As matter of fact Rudy said in court this was not a fraud case. Because even he can't lie in court.

I mean if you want to see it play out. Go right ahead. No one can or should stop you. However the majority of Americans have moved on. Why is this presidential election any different than any of the past? Because this president is being the spoiled child he always acts like! The margin he lost this election by is more than he can make up. It will not go to the Supreme court. No red state legislature is going to save him by going against the will of voters. But you go right ahead and let it play out for you.

---

"However the majority of Americans have moved on"

If you believe that; then, shouldn't Americans be ready to move from this?

caryking said:

---

"However the majority of Americans have moved on"

If you believe that; then, shouldn't Americans be ready to move from this?

---

Americans are moving on because...

1) Trump's crack commando legal squad keeps dropping lawsuits or having theirs dismissed
2) Trump's remaining legal challenges that haven't been dropped or dismissed appear insufficient in number and scope to change the electoral results of any state, much less the multiple states necessary to change the outcome in the election
3) Nobody is producing any evidence that's worth a tinker's damn

But what does that have to do with the women's team taking a knee?

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

"However the majority of Americans have moved on"

If you believe that; then, shouldn't Americans be ready to move from this?

---

Americans are moving on because...

1) Trump's crack commando legal squad keeps dropping lawsuits or having theirs dismissed
2) Trump's remaining legal challenges that haven't been dropped or dismissed appear insufficient in number and scope to change the electoral results of any state, much less the multiple states necessary to change the outcome in the election
3) Nobody is producing any evidence that's worth a tinker's damn

But what does that have to do with the women's team taking a knee?

---

Are you moving on from the debacle that has been 2020? If so, it probably should include kneeling, right?

Oh, and BTW, you have it all figured out... not everybody is moving on. 3 or 4 states are now wanting to slow things down and listen to this non-evidence. I guess we will see, right?

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

---

You really don't understand all of this... read the law change and then listen to the complaints...

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

---

I have no doubt that the PA Supreme Court is going to overturn anything related to this if it doesn't benefit the democrats. That particular set of judges has already made it known through other rulings that they are extremely partisan

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

---

You really don't understand all of this... read the law change and then listen to the complaints...

---

This is spot in.

Article 2 of the constitution give elected legislatures the right to change election law, but in PA a democrat lawyer sued the state because the PA legislature decided to not change the election law, and the PA Supreme Court changed election law to give the lawyer what he wanted.

Hell of it is the governor of PA had asked for the exact election law changes that the lawyer sued for and the PA legislature had already decided to not adopt those laws.

The PA Supreme Court was way out of line and will get put down if things get so far as the Supreme Court

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

---

You really don't understand all of this... read the law change and then listen to the complaints...

---

I've read about what Act 77 did and i've read the complaints of the Plaintiffs. I'll lay out what I know and you can tell me what i don't understand.


1. The Pennsylvania legislature wrote and passed a change to their voting rules to remove most restrictions for requesting mail in ballots. Previously it had been limited to people who truly needed an "absentee" ballot.

2. it was signed into law last year by the governor.

3. The bill included a provision allowing for 180 days for the constitutionality of its changes to be questioned in court.

4. Nobody questioned the bill during that time period.

5. the plaintiff's in this case all ran as candidates in this election under these rule changes and did not formally question the election rules prior to election day.

6. The Pennsylvania voters voted in good faith in this election with their government telling them that they could request a mail in ballot for any reason.

7. The plaintiffs, after the election is over and the certification process has begun, are now questioning the constitutionality of the changes because there may have been another step in the process required before passing this act (The Governor disagrees).

8. Even though the voters all voted in good faith given the information they were given by their government, the plaintiffs are requesting that all mail in ballots that would not have counted as true absentee ballots prior to the change be thrown out and only "legal" votes be counted.

9. The plaintiff's are aware that this would disenfranchise millions of Pennsylvanian's who voted in good faith because their government told them it was ok.

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

---

You really don't understand all of this... read the law change and then listen to the complaints...

---

This is spot in.

Article 2 of the constitution give elected legislatures the right to change election law, but in PA a democrat lawyer sued the state because the PA legislature decided to not change the election law, and the PA Supreme Court changed election law to give the lawyer what he wanted.

Hell of it is the governor of PA had asked for the exact election law changes that the lawyer sued for and the PA legislature had already decided to not adopt those laws.

The PA Supreme Court was way out of line and will get put down if things get so far as the Supreme Court

---

Can you provide a link for this? Because this sure looks like the legislature changed the law themselves...

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=2019&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=77

jadawson said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

---

You really don't understand all of this... read the law change and then listen to the complaints...

---

This is spot in.

Article 2 of the constitution give elected legislatures the right to change election law, but in PA a democrat lawyer sued the state because the PA legislature decided to not change the election law, and the PA Supreme Court changed election law to give the lawyer what he wanted.

Hell of it is the governor of PA had asked for the exact election law changes that the lawyer sued for and the PA legislature had already decided to not adopt those laws.

The PA Supreme Court was way out of line and will get put down if things get so far as the Supreme Court

---

Can you provide a link for this? Because this sure looks like the legislature changed the law themselves...

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=2019&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=77

---

We both know this isn't what I'm talking about....let's not pretend that it is

cowboypack02 said:

---

jadawson said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

---

You really don't understand all of this... read the law change and then listen to the complaints...

---

This is spot in.

Article 2 of the constitution give elected legislatures the right to change election law, but in PA a democrat lawyer sued the state because the PA legislature decided to not change the election law, and the PA Supreme Court changed election law to give the lawyer what he wanted.

Hell of it is the governor of PA had asked for the exact election law changes that the lawyer sued for and the PA legislature had already decided to not adopt those laws.

The PA Supreme Court was way out of line and will get put down if things get so far as the Supreme Court

---

Can you provide a link for this? Because this sure looks like the legislature changed the law themselves...

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=2019&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=77

---

We both know this isn't what I'm talking about....let's not pretend that it is

---

If you weren't talking about Act 77 in PA and the lawsuit going on that myself and Caryking were talking about then no, i don't know what you were talking about....

jadawson said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

jadawson said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

A judge in Pennsylvania, Patricia A McCullough, just blocked the certification of the Pennsylvania election

https://parler.com/post/15a102511db4447fb3a680f275dda8dc

---

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome. They have no evidence of actual fraud so they are challenging an act that has been in place for over a year, that included a built in time period for consitutionality challenges. There were no issues with the act at any point in the lead up to the election despite the pa legislature being controlled by the GOP, and it's a process used in many states already. But now there's an issue with it. Funny how that works.

---

What's funny is your ability to say, without a doubt, this election was without significant fraud, or any fraud. As I have contended the entire time, no one, on this board, knows the truth, including me...

And, as I've said, let it play out and see what happens. If this is all a bunch of crap, it will be exposed for what it is. For some reason, the Dems on here just don't want to let it play out...

Going to your statement:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to disenfranchise millions of Americans for no reason other than they didn't like the outcome.

The view by the Republicans:

Let it never be forgotten that republicans attempted multiple times in Pennsylvania to uphold the legal votes and not allow fraudulent ballots, by the Democratic Party, to steal the election from Donald Trump.

Two different views of the same action going on right now. I would say to you: make room for the possibilities. I know I have for your statement.

---

throwing out fraudulent votes isn't disenfranchisement. Seeking to call into question EVERY mail in ballot in Pennsylvania as potentially done in violation of the PA constitution is disenfranchisement. The republican controlled state legislature changed the voting rules a year ago, nobody questioned it or sought to challenge the new rules back then or in the year leading up to the election. People in the state of Pennsylvania voted based on these rules. Now these two congressmen are trying to claim that the rules that were voted on by their own party in the state are unconstitutional and the votes should be questioned. If this doesn't reek of political gamesmanship to you then i don't know what to tell you.



By the way Pennsylvania state politicians are slamming the judge for overreach. This is something that has never been done on this scale by a judge in the history of elections in the US. The election had already been certified but it is argued that "there are still steps left in the process" even though the remaining tasks are nothing but administrative ones. Everyone that hates legislating from the bench should be irate at this judge for overstepping her bounds.

If McCullough does anything to further hold up the certification on friday you can be sure it will be overturned in the PA supreme court as the rest of the lawsuits of any importance have been.

---

You really don't understand all of this... read the law change and then listen to the complaints...

---

This is spot in.

Article 2 of the constitution give elected legislatures the right to change election law, but in PA a democrat lawyer sued the state because the PA legislature decided to not change the election law, and the PA Supreme Court changed election law to give the lawyer what he wanted.

Hell of it is the governor of PA had asked for the exact election law changes that the lawyer sued for and the PA legislature had already decided to not adopt those laws.

The PA Supreme Court was way out of line and will get put down if things get so far as the Supreme Court

---

Can you provide a link for this? Because this sure looks like the legislature changed the law themselves...

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=2019&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=77

---

We both know this isn't what I'm talking about....let's not pretend that it is

---

If you weren't talking about Act 77 in PA and the lawsuit going on that myself and Caryking were talking about then no, i don't know what you were talking about....

---

I think what you saying is mostly correct; however, that's not what the complaint is about. You should listen to the Senate meeting yesterday to fully understand the complaint. I think both, the Act 77 and the complaints, as I understand them, can exist without causing issue with one another.

Just take a listen and come up with your own opinion... my opinion is that they are very credible.

A couple of things to consider are:

• Zuckerburg gave around 400M to states for collection boxes of mail in ballots. That isn't necessarily a crime; however states distributed them unequally into Democratic strongholds. That is a violation of equal protection
• Chain of control issues
• Equal protection of observers
• Lastly, we all have seen the graphs showing large spikes of votes for Biden. They are saying that those votes, mail-in ballots, were roughly 570K to 3K for Biden. These are the ballots that have the associated points above.

Again, go listen to the testimony yesterday so you can fully understand what this is all about in PA.

Read this and ask yourself: How is Joe Biden the most engaging President in history?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-magically-outperformed-election-norms/

https://americasvoice.news

"A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain, but where facts are suggested, bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty. A cautious mind will weigh well the opposition of the phenomenon to everything hitherto observed, the strength of the testimony by which it is supported, and the errors and misconceptions to which even our senses are liable."

Thomas Jefferson

It's now time for Biden to prove election fraud didn't happen...