Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump 2024 pros and cons


the13bats

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Once again you push the same talking points while leaving out the facts that to allow mail in votes in PA would require a change to the PA constitution that never happened.  The passing of the bipartisan bill to allow no-excuse mail in voting did pass which was the first step of changing the PA constitution to allow it but it failed on the next step so the PA constitution never got changed so no-excuse mail in voting still violates the PA constitution and thus illegal.

Blah blah blah And Biden got more votes than BOM because Americans were over dolt45 utter incompetency

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Blah blah blah And Biden got more votes than BOM because Americans were over dolt45 utter incompetency

I thought you were no longer going to reply to me.

But once again people are letting their hatred of Trump get in the way of looking at what is a rather bad precedent objectively.

The PA Supreme Court, ruling on partisan lines, has set the precedent that the PA legislature can just create election laws regardless of what the PA constitution says on how elections are to be ran.  That is an extremely dangerous precedent that will in time have rather negative side effects.  

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

I thought you were no longer going to reply to me.

But once again people are letting their hatred of Trump get in the way of looking at what is a rather bad precedent objectively.

The PA Supreme Court, ruling on partisan lines, has set the precedent that the PA legislature can just create election laws regardless of what the PA constitution says on how elections are to be ran.  That is an extremely dangerous precedent that will in time have rather negative side effects.  

Hum, actually I thought I had you on ignore, vita sic est,

Oddly you like most so deeply immersed in BOM have some for lack of better word delusions that rational people who don't worship at the orange alter hate dolt45 which in my case simply isn't true I don't hate anyone dolt45 for example made a mediocre game show host comic buffoon but was an utterly humiliating totally incompetent life costing POTUS.

The PA supreme Court short of banning voting for tRump ( let me know when that happens ) are not doing anything that doesn't still give equal voting possibility to any candidate, you BOM subjects are getting more and more obscure and grasping at trying to blame other things on a simple fact tRump never won popular and lost 2020 because Americans were over him and now even more are over him if you guys would pull your heads out of the sand you pound you would see this.

Okay, back to my ignore list.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Once again you push the same talking points while leaving out the facts that to allow mail in votes in PA would require a change to the PA constitution that never happened.  The passing of the bipartisan bill to allow no-excuse mail in voting did pass which was the first step of changing the PA constitution to allow it but it failed on the next step so the PA constitution never got changed so no-excuse mail in voting still violates the PA constitution and thus illegal.

Already settled

 

https://penncapital-star.com/campaigns-elections/pennsylvanias-mail-in-voting-law-survives-constitutional-challenge-by-gop-lawmakers/

 

edit: Seems like they already allowed for it in their constitution:

 

 § 14.  Absentee voting.
        (a)  The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner
     in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors
     who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the
     municipality of their residence, because their duties,
     occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on
     the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their
     proper polling places because of illness or physical disability
     or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance
     of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election
     day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for
     the return and canvass of their votes in the election district
     in which they respectively reside.
        (b)  For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a
     city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar
     general purpose unit of government which may be created by the
     General Assembly.
     (Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5;
     Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)

        1967 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.5 renumbered former
     section 14 to present section 11 and amended and renumbered
     former section 19 to present section 14.
        1957 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.1 added present section
     14 (formerly section 19).
Edited by Occupational Hubris
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Occupational Hubris said:

A ruling on partisan lines that essentially says the PA state legislature can ignore the PA constitution and make whatever election laws they want.  That is a rather dangerous precedent and all just to justify no excuse mail in voting cause the amendment to the PA constitution couldn't get passed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarkHunter said:

A ruling on partisan lines that essentially says the PA state legislature can ignore the PA constitution and make whatever election laws they want.  That is a rather dangerous precedent and all just to justify no excuse mail in voting cause the amendment to the PA constitution couldn't get passed.

No excuse mail in voting should be standard. Our entire system is archaic, backward, and designed to disenfranchise selected groups. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

No excuse mail in voting should be standard. Our entire system is archaic, backward, and designed to disenfranchise selected groups. 

Have you ever thought about the many implications of mail in voting.

This is just one of many issues but suppose Candidate A is running for election against Candidate B.  Let's say about half way from the start of mail in voting to election day something happens and Candidate A is no longer able to be in the election.  Do you know what happens to all the mail in votes for Candidate A, under current voting laws they still get counted for Candidate A even though they are no longer in the race.  There is no mechanism for people who cast mail in ballots to change their vote once it's cast regardless of what happens after the vote is cast so if the candidate they voted for drops out or dies before the election but after mail in voting starts it will end in a split ballot and essentially guarantees the opponent wins.  That is just the start of a long cascade of issues for this one specific example.

The system is archaic, backwards, and in some situations arguably designed to disenfranchise select groups but mail in voting doesn't really solve any of the issues significantly but opens up a bunch of new issues while giving the appearance of fixing things.  But it makes people feel like something is being fixed and very few people think about potential problems until they actually happen then there is a crisis.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I think we must disagee. Though you are right on one point - how you answer this question depends on who you're asking. You, for example, would answer this VERY DIFFERENT to how I would. I think your categorisation of Trump bears zero resemblance to the 4 years Trump was actually in office. Thanks for the chat :tu: 

Thanks.  Good chat.  Regards.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when it comes to mail in voting , how does this benefit Dems more than Repubs?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Agent0range said:

So Donald Trump literally told his supporters not to vote by mail, and it was a surprise that the great majority of the mail in votes were for Biden.  I want to point something out with this theory.  People use Pennsylvania as an example far too often.  Pennsylvania only allowed mail in voting if you were out of state, or in the military.  In the year BEFORE Covid, there was a bi-partisan effort to allow no-excuse mail in voting.  Meaning, you can vote by mail while living in PA.  After the election, people tried to say the state changed the rules for Covid.  It wasn't true.  Republicans even took the bill they introduced to the Supreme Court to try to get it overturned.  What other states dramatically changed the voting rules?  Can you provide some examples that aren't Pennsylvania?  Because that talking point is false.

Pennsylvania changed their absentee ballot requirements with legislation in a way that would necessarily require a change in their constitution.
From that constitution:

image.png.b43cd50435dcadbcb83713a285e15d6f.png

The legislation:
image.png.417738eb2f0f703168f6b7517beb5689.png

This opened the door to fraud.

Also, in Philadelphia, Democratic vote counters made a mockery of the state's intent about what partisan observers can observe.
If Republican poll workers made Democrat partisan observers stand 6 feet away from where ballots were being counted, I venture to say THAT would make a big story on CNN.

Harte

Edited by Harte
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mental illness. There's no other explanation.

Maxine Waters Calls on DOJ to Investigate Trump Supporters ‘Training Up in the Hills’ for Civil War

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/05/06/maxine-waters-calls-on-doj-to-investigate-trump-supporters-training-up-in-the-hills-for-civil-war/

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They literally can't even hide their racism anymore. Like we didn't know it already anyway.

Again, the left are exactly what they say they aren't.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More mental illness.

 

CNN star is eviscerated for revealing she was 'haunted' by dinner with 'closet MAGA' fans who 'seemed ordinary'

'Trump fans, normal? Imagine!' Ex-CNN reporter is eviscerated for revealing she was

Former NBC reporters Michelle Kosinski was blasted for a 'total lack of self awareness' over her comments made on X on Sunday about 'closet MAGA' supporters. Kosinski, 50, took to social media to moan about being 'haunted' by a dinner with Donald Trump supporters who 'seemed normal' at first. But she was given a taste of her own medicine when furious X users including political commentator Tomi Lahren (inset) hopped on the thread to point out her 'oversized ego'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Harte said:

Pennsylvania changed their absentee ballot requirements with legislation in a way that would necessarily require a change in their constitution.
From that constitution:

image.png.b43cd50435dcadbcb83713a285e15d6f.png

The legislation:
image.png.417738eb2f0f703168f6b7517beb5689.png

This opened the door to fraud.

Also, in Philadelphia, Democratic vote counters made a mockery of the state's intent about what partisan observers can observe.
If Republican poll workers made Democrat partisan observers stand 6 feet away from where ballots were being counted, I venture to say THAT would make a big story on CNN.

Harte

Changed it when?  Before, or after Covid.  Act 77 was passed before Covid, which was exactly my point, dummy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

it won't be long before it's used against your interests.

We're already seeing that in other contexts. I was reading yesterday about a Democrat lawmaker who voted in support of New York's "Adult Survivor's Act", you know the one that was used by E. Jean Carroll to bring that bogus lawsuit against Trump.... because it was going to be used against Trump, no one seemed to have a problem with it. But he has now been charged under the act and he is now claiming it's unconstitutional. 

Apparently no one thought it would be used against anyone of importance but Trump! 

Edited by Link of Hyrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

We're already seeing that in other contexts. I was reading yesterday about a Democrat lawmaker who voted in support of New York's "Adult Survivor's Act", you know the one that was used by E. Jean Carroll to bring that bogus lawsuit against Trump.... because it was going to be used against Trump, no one seemed to have a problem with it. But he has now been charged under the act and he is now claiming it's unconstitutional. 

Apparently no one thought it would be used against anyone of importance but Trump! 

It's insane how many people are willing to support anything and everything if it seems that it will hurt Trump or his reelection chances with no regard to the potential long term damage it can do.  People are honestly willing to burn down and destroy everything to keep Trump from being president which is terrifying and extremely dangerous

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I thought you were no longer going to reply to me.

But once again people are letting their hatred of Trump get in the way of looking at what is a rather bad precedent objectively.

The PA Supreme Court, ruling on partisan lines, has set the precedent that the PA legislature can just create election laws regardless of what the PA constitution says on how elections are to be ran.  That is an extremely dangerous precedent that will in time have rather negative side effects.  

Can you point to the section in the PA constitution on voting that's being violated? https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=7

I find this summary of the 2020 election and Pennsylvania here: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-pennsylvania-supreme-court-election-rigged-315648072461

The relevant section says:

Quote

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered as part of a deadlocked, 3-3 decision on Nov. 1 that absentee or mail-in ballots for the 2022 general election should not be counted if they “are contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes” and that counties should instead “segregate and preserve” these ballots. The court has not yet explained its full reasoning for the order, which came despite the deadlock.

The status of such ballots has previously been litigated repeatedly. Pennsylvania defines absentee ballots as ballots for voters who are unable to be at their polling place on Election Day and mail-in ballots as those for anyone else who votes by mail.

On Saturday, the court clarified in a supplemental order that “incorrectly dated” refers to mail-in ballots with dates that fall outside the range of Sept. 19, 2022, through Nov. 8, 2022, and absentee ballots outside the range of Aug. 30, 2022, through Nov. 8, 2022.

The court did not rule that the 2020 election was rigged, by the way.  Just the opposite.

Anyway, I am curious (and not trying to be confrontational) -- all the information I see, including original texts on the Pennsylvania government website, doesn't seem to show any disjoint between constitution and voting practices.  Could you point to law (not blogs or news sites) that shows me what points you're talking about when you say the courts ruled against the PA constituion?

Thanks.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Can you point to the section in the PA constitution on voting that's being violated? https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=7

I find this summary of the 2020 election and Pennsylvania here: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-pennsylvania-supreme-court-election-rigged-315648072461

The relevant section says:

The court did not rule that the 2020 election was rigged, by the way.  Just the opposite.

Anyway, I am curious (and not trying to be confrontational) -- all the information I see, including original texts on the Pennsylvania government website, doesn't seem to show any disjoint between constitution and voting practices.  Could you point to law (not blogs or news sites) that shows me what points you're talking about when you say the courts ruled against the PA constituion?

Thanks.

This is going to be a rather long post.

First the constitutional issue.  Basically for the PA constituion, until Act 77, all mail in ballots fell under the absentee ballots of which section 14 specifies who exactly is able to request an absentee ballot.

"

§ 14.  Absentee voting.

(a)  The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.

(b)  For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.

(Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5; Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)"

Up until Act 77 which allowed for no excuse mail in ballots the only way to get a mail in ballot in PA was to meet one of the conditions under Section 14 subsection a.

Second is the legal precedent issue.  This isn't the first time that there was an attempt to expand mail in voting in PA by this method, it's actually the third time.  The first two times previous PA Supreme courts ruled that to expand mail in voting that an amendment to the PA constituion would be required.  The first was during the Civil War in 1862 with Chase v. Miller, essentially the case was about the Military Absentee Act of 1839 which essentially allowed PA soldiers to cast absentee ballots at a location determined by their commander but the law was challenged in 1862 when it became clear that 420 absentee soldier votes would change the outcome of the election and the PA Supreme Court then ruled that the Military Absentee Act of 1839 violated the PA constituion and was thus not valid and the 420 absentee soldier votes had to be thrown out.  The PA Supreme Court essentially ruled that the PA constituion as it was written did not allow for that kind of mail in voting and a amendment to the constitution would be required to make those votes legimate and not a law passed by the PA legislature.  The next challenge came in 1923 with the 1923 Absentee Voting Act which allowed PA residents to vote by absentee ballot if they had to be out of the state due to occupation or business and the PA Supreme Court struck it down cause at the time the only allowed absentee votes allowed were for military service and the PA Supreme Court ruled a second time that a change to voting required a constitutional amendment and not a law passed by the legislature.  That all changed with the 2022 PA Supreme Court who threw out all of that precedent set by former PA Supreme courts.

This link has a bit more information on it as I just quickly summarized it.

https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2022/05/23/commonwealth-court-no-excuse-absentee-voting-requires-constitutional-amendment-in-pennsylvania/

Should be noted that eventually amendments were passed that did allow for those kind of absentee votes but the PA legislature just passing them as laws has traditionally been found to violate the PA constituion and thus not be allowed.

I feel like I should add that for the constitutional issue that the PA constituion has generally been accepted as requiring in person voting with the only exception being for the absentee ballots but the 2022 PA Supreme Court is essentially ignoring both former precedent and the constituion itself by essentially redefining stuff however they want to justify their ruling.

Edited by DarkHunter
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2024 at 10:02 PM, DarkHunter said:

A ruling on partisan lines that essentially says the PA state legislature can ignore the PA constitution and make whatever election laws they want.  That is a rather dangerous precedent and all just to justify no excuse mail in voting cause the amendment to the PA constitution couldn't get passed.

Don't you like rulings on partisan lines when you are in the majority?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2024 at 12:05 AM, DieChecker said:

Im going to say Trump wins.

Because there are really only five, or six, states that will decide the election, and most of them are polling at +5 for Trump right now, which is outside the margin of error.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/biden-trails-trump-in-6-of-7-key-states-poll-shows-election-2024

Arizona - Trump by 7

Georgia - Trump by 6

Nevada - Trump by 8

North Carolina - Trump by 10

And

Wisconsin - Trump by 4

Pennsylvania - Trump by 1

Unless Biden can turn this seeming trend around, he is going to lose.

Neither Biden nor Trump will turn it around, they are both far too old to serve another 4 years.  Issues will turn it around.  Voting decisions are pretty easy when the parties are so clearly far apart on many issues.  Vote for what you like and believe in.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2024 at 9:34 PM, the13bats said:

Pros and cons of him being the next potus and please keep it to facts not opinions

Trump may be a con by election time. Oh Stormy times in court today.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

Don't you like rulings on partisan lines when you are in the majority?

Just throw out approximately 160 years of precedent and have the PA Supreme Court ignore the PA constituion for a desired political result, it's not like this might have unintended and serious consequences later on.

The people who support this will celebrate now, but what happens if in the near future the PA legislature decides to pass an act that essentially completely removes all mail in ballots.  The precedent that the PA Supreme Court just passed means that the PA legislature can make whatever law it wants regarding elections regardless of what the PA constituion says.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Just throw out approximately 160 years of precedent and have the PA Supreme Court ignore the PA constituion for a desired political result, it's not like this might have unintended and serious consequences later on.

The people who support this will celebrate now, but what happens if in the near future the PA legislature decides to pass an act that essentially completely removes all mail in ballots.  The precedent that the PA Supreme Court just passed means that the PA legislature can make whatever law it wants regarding elections regardless of what the PA constituion says.

giphy-2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2024 at 9:51 AM, Tatetopa said:

Maybe, or maybe the come to Jesus moment was the invasion of Ukraine and the Russian state propaganda spiel about reconstitution of the Russian empire complete with Poland and the Baltic nations.

Maybe, but Canada and the EU upped their contributions back in 2020, when trump was talking about it a lot.

Previously NATO countries agreed to go to 2% by 2024, but seems Trump thought many were lagging.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/08/28/trump-boosts-questionable-nato-funding-claims-in-gop-convention-speech/

Quote

Trump has used those pledges to make a vigorous push for allies to share more of the costs for their own protection. And Stoltenberg has given Trump some credit for Canada and European allies adding $130 billion to their defense budgets, on the way to $400 billion by 2024.

“President Trump has been very clear,” Stoltenberg told Fox News in 2019. “He is committed to NATO. He stated that clearly just a few days ago and also at the NATO summit in July. But at the same time, he has clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more. And therefore at the summit in July last year, we agreed to do more to step up ― and now we see the results.”

The Ukraine invasion wasnt till February of 2022. After most NATO members had alresdy increased their commitment. Though Putin was pretty obvious in the yesr before with his intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.