This can't be, le centrists assured me that this was all an act and Republicans weren't actually trying to steal elections now.
This was the play all along - they were hoping the election would be close enough to refuse to accept the outcome while throwing out wild and illegal bullshit to dismiss ballots.
This is a much bigger problem than anyone wants to admit. I better never see another "but both sides" again.
So an entrenched white male refuses to concede a seat to a woman on the pretense of having beaten her by 69(!!!) invalid votes? That's misogyny, plain and simple.
State law says the voter shall “fill out, date and sign” a declaration on the outside envelope, although it does not say that leaving off a date automatically disqualifies the ballot.
That's Pizzashill logic, all right.
PS: both sides are clearly retarded, but yours is more retarded in this case.
No, not both sides you incoherent moron. The court fucking ruled, the court says the GOP is wrong.
Who has the authority to settle this matter? The fucking courts do.
These people aren't even claiming the ballots are invalid, they're trying to have them thrown out on a technicality that primarily exists to suppress voters.
The ballots are post marked - we know they are valid ballots.
Who has the authority to settle this matter? The fucking courts do.
Well, if your argument boils down to "might makes right, this is so because the court said so" then you shouldn't cry like a little bitch when it turns that actually they don't have authority in this case.
These people aren't even claiming the ballots are invalid, they're trying to have them thrown out on a technicality that primarily exists to suppress voters.
Except
The state Senate district also includes part of Westmoreland County, which decided against counting 343 mail-in ballots that lacked a handwritten date on the outer envelope.
And again, if you say that consistency is for suckers, technically it's up to those other voters to sue, so na na na the court has decided, then don't cry like a little bitch when said court decision is ignored because of another technicality.
Well, if your argument boils down to "might makes right, this is so because the court said so" then you shouldn't cry like a little bitch when it turns that actually they don't have authority in this case.
Turning to the courts is the absolute opposite of "might makes right" it's using the established legal framework to settle disputes. Trying to use political power to ignore this legal framework would be "might makes right."
And again, if you say that consistency is for suckers, technically it's up to those other voters to sue, so na na na the court has decided, then don't cry like a little bitch when said court decision is ignored because of another technicality.
Except that isn't relevant. Unless the state government dictated what each county was allowed to do, and gave some counties different instructions, this is completely irrelevant.
Counties decide on their own, of their own free will how to count ballots, within what the law says. This is just an incoherent argument being made by the GOP, which is why they lost in court.
Turning to the courts is the absolute opposite of "might makes right"
No, the only thing that is not "might makes right" is debating the fairness of the decision on its own merits.
Everything else is little bitches gloating that might makes right when it forces through a decision that they like, then crying when the opposite decision is forced through on a higher level. Why should we respect the sacred right of the state supreme court to make retarded rulings, but not the sacred right of the senate to ignore them?
Except that isn't relevant. Unless the state government dictated what each county was allowed to do, and gave some counties different instructions, this is completely irrelevant.
This is called a technicality. Now you've found out that another technicality beat your technicality, wanna cry that technicalities are bad? Too late bud 😏😏😏
Everything else is little bitches gloating that might makes right when it forces through a decision that they like, then crying when the opposite decision is forced through on a higher level. Why should we respect the sacred right of the state supreme court to make retarded rulings, but not the sacred right of the state senate to ignore them?
Again, no. You're trying to claim that using the established legal framework to argue facts on their merits is somehow "might makes right" when in reality a party that lost an election is trying to ignore that established legal framework to steal said election.
The "state senate" doesn't actually have the authority to ignore the rulings of the supreme court either. They're just trying to do it anyway.
This is called a technicality. Now you've found out that another technicality beat your technicality, wanna cry that technicalities are bad? Too late bud 😏😏😏
No, it actually isn't. It's just blatant illegality being pushed by the GOP because they lost an election.
Think about the logic you're using here - if the GOPs argument made any sense, counties would be subservient to the will of other counties retroactivity.
This is such an absurd precedent to set it would quite literally destroy American democracy.
"oh, this other county decided to count ballots slightly differently? Guess we better throw out 700k ballots in this other county."
the time to remedy differences in counting methods is before an election, not after you've lost. All you're doing is going back and trying to change the rules and steal an election.
It's indefensible, you know it's indefensible. You just don't care because you're a hyperpartisan proto-fascist authoritarian.
It's just blatant illegality being pushed by the GOP because they lost an election.
You keep using that word, are you sure you know what it means? It turns out that the senate can legally refuse to seat a person they don't like. There's a constitutional provision that says each legislative chamber “shall judge of the election and qualifications of its members.”
I think that you're trying to argue that the right of a state supreme court to make a retarded decision to not invalidate invalid ballots is not only legal but sacred, but the right of the senate to ignore it is legal but not sacred. That's known in the business as being a whiny loser bitch.
"oh, this other county decided to count ballots slightly differently? Guess we better throw out 700k ballots in this other country."
No, this was a supporting argument actually. The main argument was that the law clearly said that a signature and a date were required so, between us law respecters, the ballots should have been thrown out. And then you were like, as much as you respected the established legal framework, in this case throwing out such ballots was something that only the cruelest vote supressor would do, so we should do what's right, not what the law says.
Then I pointed out that another county threw out such ballots no problem, so maybe the state should've attempted to be consistent either way, and suddenly you are all technically that has no standing, technically their supreme court can decide whatever, let's stick to our technicalities instead of what's right. Whiny little loser bitch.
Alright, this is literally pointless. At this point you're trying to argue stealing elections is ok and that the courts don't rule on our laws.
The GOP is going to keep fucking around and find out they are a minority in this country, and it isn't going to end well for them.
Conservatives are going to learn about the gap between rhetoric and reality very soon if they keep going down this path of lawlessness, illegality, and attempted election theft.
At this point you're trying to argue stealing elections is ok and that the courts don't rule on our laws.
Is this some kind of Rip Van Winkle scenario where you're waking up now, having been in a coma since early November? Most of the magatards and jes' folks real concerned about election integrity have been way past caring about courts and laws for weeks now. They're fully on board with #StopTheSteal, larping about civil war in DC, and glowposting their little hearts out across any site that hasn't banned them yet.
You can't appeal to their ideals and decency and whatever shit you're trying in this thread. Best bet is to just point and laugh and wait until the 'Rona thins out their numbers a bit.
At this point you're trying to argue stealing elections is ok and that the courts don't rule on our laws.
Nah, I'm arguing that we should've been arguing whether that was stealing an election, like, where the ballots really should have been thrown out, without appeals to sacred principles such as "courts shall rule on laws" and "the senate shall rule on who ends being seated".
Your problem Pizza is not that you're less intelligent than me (though that's obvious), it's that you have not yet mastered the tricky skill of not signing up to defend a retarded cause. I'm pretty sure that you haven't even opened the linked article before screeching about it, I just had this feeling in my bones that I should go and read it and see if it makes enough of a cause to utterly crush your tiny intellectual midget frame beneath my intellectual heel.
The GOP is going to keep fucking around and find out they are a minority in this country, and it isn't going to end well for them.
Eh, the only category that didn't see a massive increase in votes for Trump compared to 2016 was white males. I think that Democrats are running on some sort of ancient political instinct that tells them that they should piss off as many people as possible while still winning (because in peaceful times your worst competition is your neighbor), but it doesn't work all that reliably in a country with literally more than a million times more people than in an ancestral tribe where such intuitions were developed. So I wouldn't be surprised at all when they manage to make hispanics white, piss off educated Jews and Asians, the non-ADOS blacks, usual blacks who don't like crime, and so on and so forth.
Also keep in mind that while you get yourself into a foaming frenzy about "GOP stealing an election" a lot of people would see it as "GOP reverting a stolen election" and this factual disagreement will cause a huge divergence in outcomes. It's not "some people might be less outraged by this than me", it's that a lot of people are outraged by you and the lying media justifying election fraud.
In case you missed it, you were dismissed when you tried to mental gymnastics open election theft/illegality to defend your minority party that can't accept the fact they lost an election.
There's no point in going on here because you live in an alternate reality.
You people have lost in court over 60 times and failed to present a single shred of evidence in relation to election fraud.
If it's illegal then surely you don't have to waste your breath arguing that it's immoral, it will be reversed and prosecuted 🤗🤗
You people have lost in court over 60 times and failed to present a single shred of evidence in relation to election fraud.
They are not my people and it's utterly irrelevant in the case at hand.
Reality is not subjective.
Yeah, and the number one sign of not living in the actual reality is when you form strong opinions on what things should be, legally, based on what you read in your echochamber, and then the legal system definitively and conclusively disagrees.
You're trying to claim everyone is ignoring this mythical evidence of voter fraud, when in reality the evidence simply does not exist.
You people have lost in court over 60 times.
You people have failed to present a single credible shred of proof.
There was no election fraud, it does not exist, period.
If it's illegal then surely you don't have to waste your breath arguing that it's immoral, it will be reversed and prosecuted 🤗🤗
Don't worry, I have full faith the courts and US law enforcement will put these people in their place.
Yeah, and the number one sign of not living in the actual reality is when you form strong opinions on what things should be, legally, based on what you read in your echochamber, and then the legal system definitively and conclusively disagrees.
Except the legal system disagrees with you, not me, as shown by the court rulings we have. Is this satire man? You're literally trying to claim the legal system disagrees with me, while also claiming court rulings that say you're wrong don't count.
You're trying to claim everyone is ignoring this mythical evidence of voter fraud, when in reality the evidence simply does not exist.
Who are you talking to? Certainly not to me.
Except the legal system disagrees with you, not me, as shown by the court rulings we have.
Those rulings were made by a small part of the legal system. We'll see if the entire legal system agrees that the Senate can tell a state court to go fuck itself if it feels like that. You're preemptively crying about that, you little whiny bitch.
This has to be a joke. "Sure, the Republican party is opening trying to steal elections because their obese cult leader is whining, but who cares haha."
Who are you talking to? Certainly not to me.
??
Also keep in mind that while you get yourself into a foaming frenzy about "GOP stealing an election" a lot of people would see it as "GOP reverting a stolen election" and this factual disagreement will cause a huge divergence in outcomes. It's not "some people might be less outraged by this than me", it's that a lot of people are outraged by you and the lying media justifying election fraud.
Is this like the lester version of jaqing off dude? We both know you're a MAGA loon.
Is this like the lester version of jaqing off dude? We both know you're a MAGA loon.
No, I am not. You got that impression because you're afflicted by the TDS and I enjoy making you eat shit. If you try to defend Daddy in retarded ways (the retarded part will come to you naturally, don't worry about it), you'll find that I appear like a blindingly bright angel of liberal retribution to you. For example.
This has to be a joke. "Sure, the Republican party is opening trying to steal elections because their obese cult leader is whining, but who cares haha."
Making sure that the ballots that the law clearly says are invalid should be thrown out is the opposite of stealing the election.
Your constant "but the DDRaddy had fifty lawsuits thrown out" is weird, does your underdeveloped brain really works in a way where it's a legitimate counter-argument in this here situation? Like, I mean, everyone's brain works that way all right, arguments are soldiers and you don't shoot your soldiers in the back etc, but you know me, you know that I'll catch you doing this and make fun of you mercilessly, and still... Do you smoke a lot of weed, by any chance? Because you're like a retarded husk of your former self to be honest.
I honestly have no idea who you think you're fooling and why you're under the impression:
A) Getting over 50 lawsuits thrown out for a lack of evidence is not relevant to election fraud conspiracies.
B) You aren't a daddy defender.
C) The law is somehow on the side of Republicans here, very clearly trying to throw out votes from counties they can't win.
You are, and I do not say this lightly Lester, one of the least incompetent, perpetually wrong idiots I have ever encountered on the internet.
It's especially funny you think the Republican party engaging in these non-sensical "illegal ballots are being counted" conspiracies across the board is somehow not relevant to this case, considering it's exactly what they're doing, yet again, while also losing in court.
A) Getting over 50 lawsuits thrown out for a lack of evidence is not relevant to election fraud conspiracies.
relevant to the admitted fact that in that particular county in Penisvalley there were 300 illegal votes counted? Like, straight up illegal, the law said that there should be a date, there wasn't a date, this is not in dispute.
And instead of engaging with that you say that this shit is phoney because Trumptards made all those other phoney accusations. What?
considering it's exactly what they're doing, yet again, while also losing in court.
Yeah, yeah, might makes right, and it makes it right also when the constitution-backed might, lol. Cry more. Have you noticed that it's you crying, not me? Keep crying while arguing that might makes right LMAO.
relevant to the admitted fact that in that particular county in Penisvalley there were 300 illegal votes counted? Like, straight up illegal, the law said that there should be a date, there wasn't a date, this is not in dispute.
We're legit done here. You are a pathological fucking liar. The GOP claimed they were illegal and the courts disagreed.
Who has a better understanding of law, our court systems or Republican partisans?
Me. I have the better understanding. If the law says that there are four lights and the PA state supreme court says that there are five lights, I keep believing that there are four lights.
Anyways, you keep arguing from the position of power, like ignore how many lights there are really, the court wields the might to declare the number of lights, but then cry like a little bitch when a higher power overrides that decision.
It's pointless as you said, neither you nor me are in a position to actually influence anything about this. I could only shit all over your retarded overconfidence, which I did. The real world seems to go and side with me. That's all I guess?
Dunning-kruger sure is powerful. Lester here understands PA law better than the PA supreme court, where did you obtain your law degree and which court did you serve on?
Does the PA supreme court have the authority to read and interpret PA law?
To the exact same level but a lesser extent as the Senate has the authority to ignore them. We know that both of those are legal, so tell me which of the two is sacred and why particularly.
The state supreme court rulings, but again, in chess terms this is a fork, either you smug out at me because the higher courts will reverse all of this or you cry like a little bitch because the Repubs "cheated" successfully. When you're trying to do both it's uh not very respectable, it's outright despicable.
You keep trying to pretend elected officials are simply above the supreme court of a state, they aren't.
When it comes to applying the law, the supreme court has the authority.
You can't just disagree with them and do whatever you want. This is especially true when the vote total was already certified by the appointed election officials.
When it comes to applying the law, the supreme court has the authority.
You're saying this, but they don't have the authority. Watch 'em go lol!
What you're trying to say is that they should have the authority, but the reality is that they don't. Like, knock yourself out or something, idk what else to tell you LMAO.
Do you mean the actual authority that would stop the Senate, or an imaginary Qultist-like authority that exists in the Plato realm but doesn't actually do anything?
You sound indistinguishable from the gold fringed maritime law folks FYI. Not in being as wrong as them but in the quality of your arguments. Lay off the pipe man, save whatever brain cells you have remaining.
"Everyone plays fairly according to the spirit of the law" is better than "everyone uses every legal technicality to win" which is better than "my side plays fairly, your side uses every legal technicality".
The most retarded thing in the circumstances is to call me out for hypocrisy, like if I'm against ratfucking then why do I not prefer a situation where there's only half of ratfucking happening.
Also btw I'm a radical centrist, I'm just always ready to stand up for the underdogs and the downtrodden 😇 (I'm trying to emulate Johnny Cash in this respect)
Yeah, it's bizarre, the chamber at the state house looks more like a shitty college lecture hall. It does make it less notable that the Red Pill sub guy was a state house member since everyone and their dog apparently is, but that'll still always be funny to me. Also, the tour guide was so fucking proud of their lack of safety laws (car seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, etc).
74 comments
17 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
This can't be, le centrists assured me that this was all an act and Republicans weren't actually trying to steal elections now.
This was the play all along - they were hoping the election would be close enough to refuse to accept the outcome while throwing out wild and illegal bullshit to dismiss ballots.
This is a much bigger problem than anyone wants to admit. I better never see another "but both sides" again.
24 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
So an entrenched white male refuses to concede a seat to a woman on the pretense of having beaten her by 69(!!!) invalid votes? That's misogyny, plain and simple.
That's Pizzashill logic, all right.
PS: both sides are clearly retarded, but yours is more retarded in this case.
17 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
No, not both sides you incoherent moron. The court fucking ruled, the court says the GOP is wrong.
Who has the authority to settle this matter? The fucking courts do.
These people aren't even claiming the ballots are invalid, they're trying to have them thrown out on a technicality that primarily exists to suppress voters.
The ballots are post marked - we know they are valid ballots.
11 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
Well, if your argument boils down to "might makes right, this is so because the court said so" then you shouldn't cry like a little bitch when it turns that actually they don't have authority in this case.
Except
And again, if you say that consistency is for suckers, technically it's up to those other voters to sue, so na na na the court has decided, then don't cry like a little bitch when said court decision is ignored because of another technicality.
5 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
Turning to the courts is the absolute opposite of "might makes right" it's using the established legal framework to settle disputes. Trying to use political power to ignore this legal framework would be "might makes right."
Except that isn't relevant. Unless the state government dictated what each county was allowed to do, and gave some counties different instructions, this is completely irrelevant.
Counties decide on their own, of their own free will how to count ballots, within what the law says. This is just an incoherent argument being made by the GOP, which is why they lost in court.
4 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
No, the only thing that is not "might makes right" is debating the fairness of the decision on its own merits.
Everything else is little bitches gloating that might makes right when it forces through a decision that they like, then crying when the opposite decision is forced through on a higher level. Why should we respect the sacred right of the state supreme court to make retarded rulings, but not the sacred right of the senate to ignore them?
This is called a technicality. Now you've found out that another technicality beat your technicality, wanna cry that technicalities are bad? Too late bud 😏😏😏
10 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
Again, no. You're trying to claim that using the established legal framework to argue facts on their merits is somehow "might makes right" when in reality a party that lost an election is trying to ignore that established legal framework to steal said election.
The "state senate" doesn't actually have the authority to ignore the rulings of the supreme court either. They're just trying to do it anyway.
No, it actually isn't. It's just blatant illegality being pushed by the GOP because they lost an election.
Think about the logic you're using here - if the GOPs argument made any sense, counties would be subservient to the will of other counties retroactivity.
This is such an absurd precedent to set it would quite literally destroy American democracy.
"oh, this other county decided to count ballots slightly differently? Guess we better throw out 700k ballots in this other county."
the time to remedy differences in counting methods is before an election, not after you've lost. All you're doing is going back and trying to change the rules and steal an election.
It's indefensible, you know it's indefensible. You just don't care because you're a hyperpartisan proto-fascist authoritarian.
12 BroboxylicAcid 2021-01-05
That's a very pointed way of saying zerg is a giant nerd.
10 JimieWhales 2021-01-05
srsposting? in my /r/drama? it's more likely than you'd think!
3 wizdumb337 2021-01-05
😂🐄🤫
1 seenten 2021-01-05
If this is actually pizza's newest alt then what do you expect?
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
You keep using that word, are you sure you know what it means? It turns out that the senate can legally refuse to seat a person they don't like. There's a constitutional provision that says each legislative chamber “shall judge of the election and qualifications of its members.”
I think that you're trying to argue that the right of a state supreme court to make a retarded decision to not invalidate invalid ballots is not only legal but sacred, but the right of the senate to ignore it is legal but not sacred. That's known in the business as being a whiny loser bitch.
No, this was a supporting argument actually. The main argument was that the law clearly said that a signature and a date were required so, between us law respecters, the ballots should have been thrown out. And then you were like, as much as you respected the established legal framework, in this case throwing out such ballots was something that only the cruelest vote supressor would do, so we should do what's right, not what the law says.
Then I pointed out that another county threw out such ballots no problem, so maybe the state should've attempted to be consistent either way, and suddenly you are all technically that has no standing, technically their supreme court can decide whatever, let's stick to our technicalities instead of what's right. Whiny little loser bitch.
10 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
Alright, this is literally pointless. At this point you're trying to argue stealing elections is ok and that the courts don't rule on our laws.
The GOP is going to keep fucking around and find out they are a minority in this country, and it isn't going to end well for them.
Conservatives are going to learn about the gap between rhetoric and reality very soon if they keep going down this path of lawlessness, illegality, and attempted election theft.
4 JimieWhales 2021-01-05
Is this some kind of Rip Van Winkle scenario where you're waking up now, having been in a coma since early November? Most of the magatards and jes' folks real concerned about election integrity have been way past caring about courts and laws for weeks now. They're fully on board with #StopTheSteal, larping about civil war in DC, and glowposting their little hearts out across any site that hasn't banned them yet.
You can't appeal to their ideals and decency and whatever shit you're trying in this thread. Best bet is to just point and laugh and wait until the 'Rona thins out their numbers a bit.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
To be clear, this one specifically claimed the law was on his side.
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
Nah, I'm arguing that we should've been arguing whether that was stealing an election, like, where the ballots really should have been thrown out, without appeals to sacred principles such as "courts shall rule on laws" and "the senate shall rule on who ends being seated".
Your problem Pizza is not that you're less intelligent than me (though that's obvious), it's that you have not yet mastered the tricky skill of not signing up to defend a retarded cause. I'm pretty sure that you haven't even opened the linked article before screeching about it, I just had this feeling in my bones that I should go and read it and see if it makes enough of a cause to utterly crush your tiny intellectual midget frame beneath my intellectual heel.
Eh, the only category that didn't see a massive increase in votes for Trump compared to 2016 was white males. I think that Democrats are running on some sort of ancient political instinct that tells them that they should piss off as many people as possible while still winning (because in peaceful times your worst competition is your neighbor), but it doesn't work all that reliably in a country with literally more than a million times more people than in an ancestral tribe where such intuitions were developed. So I wouldn't be surprised at all when they manage to make hispanics white, piss off educated Jews and Asians, the non-ADOS blacks, usual blacks who don't like crime, and so on and so forth.
Also keep in mind that while you get yourself into a foaming frenzy about "GOP stealing an election" a lot of people would see it as "GOP reverting a stolen election" and this factual disagreement will cause a huge divergence in outcomes. It's not "some people might be less outraged by this than me", it's that a lot of people are outraged by you and the lying media justifying election fraud.
7 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
In case you missed it, you were dismissed when you tried to mental gymnastics open election theft/illegality to defend your minority party that can't accept the fact they lost an election.
There's no point in going on here because you live in an alternate reality.
You people have lost in court over 60 times and failed to present a single shred of evidence in relation to election fraud.
Reality is not subjective.
3 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
If it's illegal then surely you don't have to waste your breath arguing that it's immoral, it will be reversed and prosecuted 🤗🤗
They are not my people and it's utterly irrelevant in the case at hand.
Yeah, and the number one sign of not living in the actual reality is when you form strong opinions on what things should be, legally, based on what you read in your echochamber, and then the legal system definitively and conclusively disagrees.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
You are absolutely living in your own reality.
You're trying to claim everyone is ignoring this mythical evidence of voter fraud, when in reality the evidence simply does not exist.
You people have lost in court over 60 times.
You people have failed to present a single credible shred of proof.
There was no election fraud, it does not exist, period.
Don't worry, I have full faith the courts and US law enforcement will put these people in their place.
Except the legal system disagrees with you, not me, as shown by the court rulings we have. Is this satire man? You're literally trying to claim the legal system disagrees with me, while also claiming court rulings that say you're wrong don't count.
How fucking delusional are you?
3 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
Who are you talking to? Certainly not to me.
Those rulings were made by a small part of the legal system. We'll see if the entire legal system agrees that the Senate can tell a state court to go fuck itself if it feels like that. You're preemptively crying about that, you little whiny bitch.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
This has to be a joke. "Sure, the Republican party is opening trying to steal elections because their obese cult leader is whining, but who cares haha."
??
Is this like the lester version of jaqing off dude? We both know you're a MAGA loon.
2 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
No, I am not. You got that impression because you're afflicted by the TDS and I enjoy making you eat shit. If you try to defend Daddy in retarded ways (the retarded part will come to you naturally, don't worry about it), you'll find that I appear like a blindingly bright angel of liberal retribution to you. For example.
Making sure that the ballots that the law clearly says are invalid should be thrown out is the opposite of stealing the election.
Your constant "but the DDRaddy had fifty lawsuits thrown out" is weird, does your underdeveloped brain really works in a way where it's a legitimate counter-argument in this here situation? Like, I mean, everyone's brain works that way all right, arguments are soldiers and you don't shoot your soldiers in the back etc, but you know me, you know that I'll catch you doing this and make fun of you mercilessly, and still... Do you smoke a lot of weed, by any chance? Because you're like a retarded husk of your former self to be honest.
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
I honestly have no idea who you think you're fooling and why you're under the impression:
A) Getting over 50 lawsuits thrown out for a lack of evidence is not relevant to election fraud conspiracies.
B) You aren't a daddy defender.
C) The law is somehow on the side of Republicans here, very clearly trying to throw out votes from counties they can't win.
You are, and I do not say this lightly Lester, one of the least incompetent, perpetually wrong idiots I have ever encountered on the internet.
It's especially funny you think the Republican party engaging in these non-sensical "illegal ballots are being counted" conspiracies across the board is somehow not relevant to this case, considering it's exactly what they're doing, yet again, while also losing in court.
2 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
How is
relevant to the admitted fact that in that particular county in Penisvalley there were 300 illegal votes counted? Like, straight up illegal, the law said that there should be a date, there wasn't a date, this is not in dispute.
And instead of engaging with that you say that this shit is phoney because Trumptards made all those other phoney accusations. What?
Yeah, yeah, might makes right, and it makes it right also when the constitution-backed might, lol. Cry more. Have you noticed that it's you crying, not me? Keep crying while arguing that might makes right LMAO.
6 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
We're legit done here. You are a pathological fucking liar. The GOP claimed they were illegal and the courts disagreed.
Who has a better understanding of law, our court systems or Republican partisans?
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
Me. I have the better understanding. If the law says that there are four lights and the PA state supreme court says that there are five lights, I keep believing that there are four lights.
Anyways, you keep arguing from the position of power, like ignore how many lights there are really, the court wields the might to declare the number of lights, but then cry like a little bitch when a higher power overrides that decision.
It's pointless as you said, neither you nor me are in a position to actually influence anything about this. I could only shit all over your retarded overconfidence, which I did. The real world seems to go and side with me. That's all I guess?
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
Dunning-kruger sure is powerful. Lester here understands PA law better than the PA supreme court, where did you obtain your law degree and which court did you serve on?
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
You're pretending to be a mistake-theory quokka, to try to induce me to be one. I'm not that lol.
5 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
Does the PA supreme court have the authority to read and interpret PA law?
The DNC is about to have tri-fecta control of the government. I suggest Republicans stop pretending themselves to hold the cards at this point.
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
To the exact same level but a lesser extent as the Senate has the authority to ignore them. We know that both of those are legal, so tell me which of the two is sacred and why particularly.
4 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
The fact you unironically believe the senate is just allowed to ignore supreme court rulings is hilarious.
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
The state supreme court rulings, but again, in chess terms this is a fork, either you smug out at me because the higher courts will reverse all of this or you cry like a little bitch because the Repubs "cheated" successfully. When you're trying to do both it's uh not very respectable, it's outright despicable.
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
when a party refuses to accept state-certified vote counts, they are in fact stealing an election.
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
when a party refuses to accept the Senate decision, they are in fact stealing an election.
Good thing that it's currently the top "might makes right" level so nobody cares about your tearful refusals to accept the reality :^)
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
No, not when the senate is the one in the wrong.
You keep trying to pretend elected officials are simply above the supreme court of a state, they aren't.
When it comes to applying the law, the supreme court has the authority.
You can't just disagree with them and do whatever you want. This is especially true when the vote total was already certified by the appointed election officials.
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
You're saying this, but they don't have the authority. Watch 'em go lol!
What you're trying to say is that they should have the authority, but the reality is that they don't. Like, knock yourself out or something, idk what else to tell you LMAO.
All this reminds me of the Daniil Charms' four examples of people astonished by the truth about them
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
They do have the authority, this is actually some weird delusion you have.
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
Do you mean the actual authority that would stop the Senate, or an imaginary Qultist-like authority that exists in the Plato realm but doesn't actually do anything?
4 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
I'm not going to argue with a person that unironically believes state supreme courts do not have the authority to read and apply state law.
I'm not even convinced you aren't trolling with this, it's just so stupid and absurd I doubt even you could go this far down the delusion hole.
2 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
You sound indistinguishable from the gold fringed maritime law folks FYI. Not in being as wrong as them but in the quality of your arguments. Lay off the pipe man, save whatever brain cells you have remaining.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-05
I actually think your entire persona is a giant larp.
1 [deleted] 2021-01-05
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-01-05
Linking to subreddits is not allowed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4 DuckSosu 2021-01-05
gringe
I can't wait until they invent a vaccine that prevents autism instead of causing it.
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
If I told you that I debated with myself about writing "my intellectual heel", how would that change your cringe level?
2 DuckSosu 2021-01-05
It would increase a lot. Mostly because I would have to admit that's a pretty accurate statement.
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
Good point, edited.
2 BroboxylicAcid 2021-01-05
Well I know what you do in the bedroom now that's for sure.
8 Zero5urvivers 2021-01-05
Holy fucking shit just don’t be a bitch and just say that its ok when your side steals and cheats to win.
2 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
"Everyone plays fairly according to the spirit of the law" is better than "everyone uses every legal technicality to win" which is better than "my side plays fairly, your side uses every legal technicality".
The most retarded thing in the circumstances is to call me out for hypocrisy, like if I'm against ratfucking then why do I not prefer a situation where there's only half of ratfucking happening.
Also btw I'm a radical centrist, I'm just always ready to stand up for the underdogs and the downtrodden 😇 (I'm trying to emulate Johnny Cash in this respect)
1 GeauxHouston22 2021-01-05
I'm not readin all the dumb shit you posted, but most centrists don'e write a bakers dozen longposts defending one side and one side only lol
1 zergling_Lester 2021-01-05
Do you want me to argue with myself or something?
2 JimieWhales 2021-01-05
She only needs to find 70 votes, c'mon give her a break!
1 JimieWhales 2021-01-05
How many divisions does the Chief Justice have?
3 SnideBumbling 2021-01-05
Whoever is best at dunking
11 wizdumb337 2021-01-05
But both sides.
4 911roofer 2021-01-05
Oh no. It's retarded. Q
8 TruthPains 2021-01-05
Butt both sides....
18 Big-Ant_ 2021-01-05
I thought I was in r drama but I appear to have wandered into subredditdrama
18 TruthPains 2021-01-05
COPE
bussy
Ewww white people.
That better?
7 Whaddaulookinat 2021-01-05
Far better
1 Funkyduffy 2021-01-05
This is DramaFace and it's offensive, bigot
0 haulingtaters 2021-01-05
The term is mayo. Or cum-skin.
14 JimieWhales 2021-01-05
imagine caring this much about state legislatures, the special olympics of politics.
next you'll tell me some Karen is trying to overturn the PTA election!
5 seenten 2021-01-05
I recently learned NH has something stupid like 400 people in its state house. That's one rep per 3400 population lol.
2 pepperouchau 2021-01-05
Yeah, it's bizarre, the chamber at the state house looks more like a shitty college lecture hall. It does make it less notable that the Red Pill sub guy was a state house member since everyone and their dog apparently is, but that'll still always be funny to me. Also, the tour guide was so fucking proud of their lack of safety laws (car seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, etc).
1 seenten 2021-01-05
Getting ejected through the windshield to own the authoritarians.
1 WithoutAComma 2021-01-05
Live free or don't
3 TruthPains 2021-01-05
In Drama all drama is dramalicious.
4 Eternal_Mr_Bones 2021-01-05
I find it amusing that the proposed remedy for this violation is to throw out more votes instead of counting the others.
4 Iowa_Hawkeye 2021-01-05
Pizzas back and you're gonna be in trouble heyyy yeahhh heyyy yeahhh, pizzas back!
2 Tobyghisa 2021-01-05
First ed, now pizza is back?
Who’s next? Jewdank’s tits?
2 Iowa_Hawkeye 2021-01-05
Trappy please
1 Tobyghisa 2021-01-05
Them or Momruepari would be lit