You must log in or register to comment.

defusted t1_j1qxg8a wrote

Every time Republicans accuse Democrats of doing something illegal or wrong they're always the ones actually doing it.


artful_todger_502 t1_j1r6ta8 wrote

Every accusation is a confession.


RanchAndGreaseFlavor t1_j1rx18s wrote

I asked a 20-something guy who worked with me one day (who I knew was a trump supporter) “What happens when everyone is perceived to be irrevocably depraved?”

He didn’t answer. I guess he thought it was rhetorical. Nice kid. Lots of potential.

What happens is that within the group that believes this, actual depravity has a psychological free-pass to exceed that which is “learned” of through propaganda (the “news” they consume).

It is the ultimate rationalization tool & opens the doors to all manner of horror. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.


SendAstronomy t1_j1ru1ba wrote

And then they use that as justification of what they are doing.


Hillbl3 t1_j1r8p2h wrote

"We're doing it, so we know you must being doing it too! How dare you!"


BasvoyD t1_j1rem40 wrote

Republicans are master of deflection until they get caught. That's the same as republicans not having child marriage laws in their state.


hvacthrowaway223 t1_j1tw38p wrote

Usually, but I looked a bit into this. The GOP has a solid argument. The dems are saying since they won a theoretical majority they should get to pick the speaker. But “parties” aren’t really a thing and the speaker is just whoever gets the majority of the votes of those present, regardless of party or theoretical majority. So if they really do have more people show up, and they vote, that’s the speaker. Of course that is only until the dems have enough votes to recite and change it, but this is a basic aspect of rules, not even something a judge should get involved with.


rah215 t1_j1spr9y wrote

The same is true about democrats, maybe even more so


mainelinerzzzzz t1_j1rx3tc wrote

You’re extremely confused or brainwashed if you think that both parties don’t participate in some sorts of shenanigans. Politicians are scumbags who will do almost anything to keep their power.


Diarygirl t1_j1s835n wrote

Yeah, but you voted for the guy who hasn't accepted he lost over two years ago.


wh0_RU t1_j1s4co2 wrote

It's truly just a power grab between the parties. The bigger the scale the more crooked they get to hold power. S'Why I'm registered as Independent and judge the person running for power before they spend my tax dollars recklessly

PS the US wouldn't be where it is today without the participation of both parties. The good bad and ugly


eternalrefuge86 t1_j1s6f7u wrote

I don’t know why you got downvoted for this as it is absolutely true. There are shenanigans and chicanery on both sides and to pretend otherwise is to be incredibly obtuse


mainelinerzzzzz t1_j1se69k wrote

Enjoy the downvotes for trying to speak truth to the hypnotized.


eternalrefuge86 t1_j1sf2nc wrote

I’ve got enough karma to make up for it 😉

As a side note, the liberal hivemind of Reddit cracks me up so much. Anyone tries to speak truth and here come the downvotes from weak minded people who can’t even have an honest conversation about this subject.


kormer t1_j1s3na1 wrote

The Democrats do not have a majority of living sworn-in members of the state house. They're going to lose this case and lose any moral high ground to complain about muh democracy.

I understand that the arguments about voter intention and who will actually be serving in government may be compelling and at odds, but this is all the Democrats doing.

They could have chosen not to run someone who was of an age where waking up dead any given night was not an absurd probability. They could have chosen other people to run for higher office who wouldn't need to vacate their house seat. They could have won more races.

But they didn't do these things, and that's why we are where we are today.


defusted t1_j1s8swp wrote

Guy I don't think you get the point. For every time the Democrats pull some fuckery, and they do, the Republicans have done it more and done it far worse. Democrats gerrymander, Republicans do it far more and get taken to court over clearly repressive drawn lines. Al Franklin makes a joke about grabbing a sleeping female soldier's breasts so he retires, trump literally brags about grabbing em by the pussy and Republicans go "hehe nice". Obama wasn't allowed to nominate a supreme court justice in his last term, Republicans lose their minds because we try to hold them to the same standard. But none of this matters because idiots like you are going to keep saying dumb shit like "wElL bOtH SiDeS dO iT" which is like saying the newby-McMahon building and Burj Khalifa are both skyscrapers.


kormer t1_j1saipj wrote

So Republicans have broken the rules worse, and that makes it ok for the Democrats to break the rule a little bit less?

Are you on drugs?


defusted t1_j1scsy8 wrote

Once again, completely missing the point. Boy you're stupid.


Hashslingingslashar t1_j1smvot wrote

Bro people literally voted for a dead guy instead of a Republican… if that doesn’t reflect poorly on the GOP then uh, idk what to tell you. From the voters’ perspective it’s perfectly rational to vote for a dead guy and wait for a special election than to not vote and let a Republican win.


kormer t1_j1t0l1b wrote

Great, but the dead guy still doesn't get to vote for a house leader.


Hashslingingslashar t1_j1t0wem wrote

Sure. But neither can the Republican. And apparently that mattered more to voters. The outcome we have best reflects the will of the voters given the circumstance, which is what we should want. If the voters prefer nobody - temporarily - over a Republican that’s their right. I see zero issue with the outcome. Obviously it would be most preferred if the guy didn’t die but you can’t control that.


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1rrudu wrote

The dems at the federal level just did what gop is trying to do here.

The dems lost the house and yet they just passed a spending bill that runs 2/3 of the next federal fiscal year. They should have waited but why, they had the power at the time to jam through a 1.7 trillion spending plan.


UnaffiliatedOpinion t1_j1rwz0s wrote

Isn’t the budget supposed to be set before the fiscal year begins? This is a budget that was supposed to be done months ago.

Not saying it’s a great bill, but it is the outgoing congress’s job to set a budget that will last months into the next congress’s term.


RememberCitadel t1_j1ryh4f wrote

Correct, if the new year starts and the budget is not finalized all governemt shuts down and nobody gets paid. It has happened quite a few times in the last 10 years.

The last few times the GOP has actually held the whole country hostage by refusing to pass anything until they get a whole bunch of questionable spending attached. They are just pissed this time the shoe is on the other foot. Both parties do it to an extent, but the GOP is the party that throws a huge hissy fit about it.


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1rzhsn wrote

There hasn't been a budget passed in years. Budgets used to get debated on and passed before June. Now they just pass CRs (Continuing Resolutions) to allow the govt to continue to function. This was a CR not a budget.

Its the job of a President to put together a budget, given the current atmosphere in Washington a budget hasn't been passed since maybe Obama was president, its been that long.


UnaffiliatedOpinion t1_j1sr1ak wrote

Okay... It's the job of the outgoing Congress to ensure the government will continue to function long enough to allow the new Congress to allocate funding for the government to continue to function.

Don't get me wrong, it disgusts me that we are basically only able to pass one or two pieces of meaningful legislation per year, which are just "too big to fail" bills with everyone's pet projects tacked on, but the incoming divided government isn't going to come together to pass a proper budget resolution in some bipartisan euphoria either.


defusted t1_j1rv9m5 wrote

You mean the bipartisan spending bill that had the huge hike in military spending that the Republicans wanted? You're an idiot.


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1rw0x6 wrote

bipartisan, sure.


defusted t1_j1s2sku wrote

Oh right, the Republicants couldn't sneak in more laws about protecting guns or pedophiles so I guess they couldn't have had anything to do with it.


shadowzofsam t1_j1s3h4i wrote

Just last month, I stopped in at the local tractor supplier to get chicken scratch. The dude in front of me (rugged farmer type, common around here) comes up carrying two big bags of cat food. He starts going off to the cashier (a high school kid) about how he's mad they aren't carrying the cat food he used to get.

After about a 10 minute rant with the cashier going "sorry to hear that, sorry you're upset, etc.", this dude looks her in the eye and says "it ain't your fault, it's Biden's fault" !!!

Like bro, yeah Biden went to tractor supply headquarters and told them to stop carrying the specific type of cat food in order to ruin the life of a random rural PA resident. I had to hold back a laugh cause I didn't wanna get shot by his crazy ass lol


Ghstfce t1_j1sduch wrote

You expect someone with a small mind to be able to understand a concept like a store stocking products? Shiiiiiiiiiit


psc1919 t1_j1uge0a wrote

There was a fire on my block and our neighbors were all outside watching the fire dept and my neighbor said “well you were all popping champagne when Biden won, now look what we got.”


flaaaacid t1_j1w74t6 wrote

When I expressed surprise at the total of what I was buying at Lowe's, the cashier took that as an opportunity to say "just 2 more years, Trump's coming back, there was supposed to be this red wave and blah blah blah." I considered it my Christmas gift to her that I didn't call Lowe's corporate about it.


Rmlady12152 t1_j1rg4vj wrote

The crazies are ruining PA. I won’t even go to Lancaster anymore. The hate is terrible.


BaboonHorrorshow t1_j1s4zj2 wrote

The most hilarious part is how the Amish overwhelmingly voted Trump.

Lol fuck those backwards meth heads. You don’t have light in your house because it’s the Devil but you think the guy who raped little girls with Epstein was sent by God?

Your whole life is a sham, go kick your bike down the road a little and think about what you’ve done.


eternalrefuge86 t1_j1s6qk1 wrote

Jesus you are a bitter person. Get help.


BaboonHorrorshow t1_j1s6wct wrote

I hate fascists of all stripes - even the ones who don’t like electricity.

So yeah I am bitter towards people who support an insurrectionist. Y’all cheered as your con man tried to destroy the country I love.


Hashslingingslashar t1_j1sn9b6 wrote

Trump tried to overthrow the government based on a complete lie dude. As far as I’m concerned, hating him is the duty of all patriotic Americans. If you don’t hate him, you’re an idiot.


ktappe t1_j1swaya wrote

I will take it a step further. If you’re not anti-Trump, you are a traitor.


anonvxx t1_j1ri880 wrote

Whats going on in Lancaster? The development thats occurring around Lancaster is sad to see.


xoaphexox t1_j1rt8ys wrote

I've been here since 84. Was farmland and a few suburbs back then. A lot more strip malls and hospitals now.


Rmlady12152 t1_j1v6cvk wrote

I refuse to give my money to the delusional hateful cult. I used to go shopping up there . But never again .


ParfaitMajestic5339 t1_j1rp9i1 wrote

If the GOP insists on this power grab until May, the Dems should give them a taste of their own medicine and not allow them to speak in their committees just like dear old Daryl Metcalfe did. A couple of years of "Shut up, you're out of order" is just what they need to hear.


MetaphysicalMayhem t1_j1s03ok wrote

As it is, PA’s “stolen election” lunacy and position on the knife’s edge of Mastribation has dimmed the state’s prospects. Why would a person or company with options set up shop here? The answer is, they won’t unless and until the MAGA madness stops. So PA will be left with both urban and rural blight. It’s … SAD.


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1s4mss wrote

If it's economically viable to set up shop in PA they will.


MetaphysicalMayhem t1_j1s7wwi wrote

I agree, but it’s not as though PA is a destination of choice like CA or CO or FL …


kormer t1_j1rm0fn wrote

Is there any precedent for a vacant seat being allowed to cast a vote that changed the outcome anywhere ever?

For all the gaslighting obstructing and projection I'm seeing, it appears the legal case the Democrats are pushing is weak on a good day.


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1rowqp wrote

I think the dems know they have a weak case, thats why they hurried and swore in a speaker.


delco_trash t1_j1riyan wrote

What are the odds that gergley, Salisbury, or McAndrew lose / win?


IrrumaboMalum t1_j1sn7ai wrote

SOLUTION: A person cannot run for more than one office at a time. This all could have been avoided if two people in particular hadn't been running for reelection AND running for higher office on the same ballot.


jeep1960 t1_j1rv92v wrote

It will only be chaos if our elected officials represent their party instead all of us who voted them into office


Old_Bed_2238 t1_j1tqtyt wrote

Transmission third world war third round A decade of the weapon of Sound above Ground No Shelter if youre looking for shade I lick Shots at the brutal charade As the polls close like a casket On truth devoured A silent Play in the Shadow of Power A spectacle monopolized The camera's eyes on choice disquised Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil? or for the vultures who thirst for blood and Oil?


[deleted] t1_j1qtro5 wrote



artificialavocado t1_j1r38z5 wrote

I understand it perfectly. The republicans are doing shenanigans with the “majority” because they are trying to contest the “total” and push back special elections that will settle it definitively. It’s not that hard.

We made it clear last month we don’t want this MAGA shit here anymore. Move to fucking Florida or Alabama if you want MAGA.


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1r5u02 wrote

If the Republicans are or aren't following the rule of law that will be determined by the judge.

It has nothing to do with Trump. If you made it clear you would have won a super majority, you didn't. The state like most parts of the country are very equal with representation. The dems won state election because they carried the major population areas yet still fail to carry the more rural parts.


EarthRester t1_j1r666q wrote

Land doesn't vote.


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1r6hr5 wrote

No, but the people that live there do and they are entitled to representation just like urban people are.


susinpgh t1_j1r8oo8 wrote

Their representation should represent the proportion of the population, not an out-sized vote that devalues the vote of the majority. The minority needs to learn to compromise instead of breaking the rules like they've been doing for the last fifty years.


FairyFlossPanda t1_j1rjx5v wrote

So you support fair non partisan redistricting that gives everyone a better chance to get representatives that share their values? Or are you one of those dipshits that goes "Hurr Durr look at all the big red splotches." Never mind some of those splotches have 10 people and an old cow living there but get outsized influence because of the way things currently are.

Let's put this another way. Say you lived in an apartment building and one guy for some reason rents 10 apartments. Lets say there are 5 other appartments and each one has 1 to 2 people in it. Now let's say your landlord is awesome and lets you guys vote on things like quiet hours, living space rules etc. Does he get more say because he physically takes up more space? Do the rest of you just give up? Well everyone else wanted quiet hours from 11 pm to 7 am but Dan decided he wants this place to be 24 hour quiet hours? We wanted a Christmas Tree in the lobby but Dan voted for a tower of dildos so Merry Fucking Christmas.

Oh and by the way I was very close to someone who went to church with one of the main republicans invovled in this. When he confronted him about the stopen election stuff and the conspiracies the rep said he knew it was b.s. but it was what people were calling him about so he had to pretend to believe it. And he didnt want to upset the voters.


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1rl3ae wrote

You could have asked me like an adult and asked about gerrymandering, instead you asked and explained it to me like I'm a five year old. Since you didn't you don't deserve an answer.

So the rep who gerrymandered the districts said that's what the voters wanted. Sure they did, not everyone believes win at all costs.


FairyFlossPanda t1_j1rljbz wrote

Sooo gonna assume the answer is "no I like things how they are because my side gets to play dirty but I dont wanna say that cause I'll look like a prick."


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1rm0en wrote

You know what they say about assume...

No I'm not the prick here


There is nothing clean about politics. It's raw and dirty it always has been. Do I like it no.


MansourBahrami t1_j1r77vs wrote

It’s basically “rural colonization” at this point. We have bigger numbers in the big cities so we can tell you what to do from 500 miles away since we can outvote you in two small locations.

Basically what England did to the colonists oh hey there we have a central army and more people and even though you’re so far away you listen to us or we will force You to at gunpoint


EarthRester t1_j1r8gbn wrote

Oh you poor victims! The very thought that you wouldn't be able to discriminate, or deny people bodily autonomy. Just because your ideology isn't the majority! How unfair! You're practically slaves! It's a holocaust of hicks and trash! /s

Get bent.


actuallyaustin6 t1_j1r8ny8 wrote

That’s because there are more Americans in urban areas than in rural areas. 🤷🏻‍♂️


Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_j1rbk4y wrote

What does that comment even have to do with the discussion?


EarthRester t1_j1rgdwm wrote

Are you asking what population density has to do with a discussion about Democracy, and the discrepancy between rural and urban areas in regards to....population density?


tyrael459 t1_j1rdrbb wrote

It very well will be decided by the courts, and I welcome it.

Pennsylvanians voted for more democrat state reps than republicans for our next congress, period. Republicans shouldn’t use their current majority to subvert our will.

I don’t know you can morally and logically debate that.


PatientNice t1_j1rg69v wrote

This is not true. The Republicans are a minority government. Millions more people vote Democrat yet the Republicans have it set up that Democrat voters get less representation for all those extra votes. Read up on it.


LittleLight85 t1_j1rojb1 wrote

The Dems won state elections because that can’t be gerrymandered.


RipTide275 t1_j1qxil9 wrote

If people don’t want to understand what’s going on they can just not read the article.


[deleted] t1_j1r8qox wrote



RipTide275 t1_j1rb5u0 wrote

I skimmed it, what I got out of skimming the article is there is a procedural clusterfuck in Harrisburg because of some unusual situations like electing a dead guy. Both parties will claim the other are cheating scum. The issues will be decided in court, then appealed by the loser. The losing side will claim the courts were politically biased.


BluCurry8 t1_j1rdtn7 wrote

Well that is a lazy response to even more dirty tricks by republicans. What keeps people voting for these liars and cheats is beyond me.


torcsandantlers t1_j1rfnmj wrote

Just because you had problems with the big words doesn't mean it's a bad article.


Prestigious-Buy1774 t1_j1r3boz wrote

It is an unopioned op-ed. And I agree it only serves to upset people On both sides of the aisle. But, On the same note, Why can't they both get their candidates ready and have the special election with the primary?? Why Must the taxpayers Absorb A special election?? Common sense tells you to just do it in May. Yes, The democrats did gain a majority of representatives-elect. That's correct, representatives-elect. When do they get sworn in? If they are not sworn in, Then the republicans do still have a majority yet. That Will change after the new representatives are sworn in. The real question is Who has the power before they are sworn in? The courts will determine This answer Based on the law. It is uncharted territory, And we should not get upset about it Before it appears before a judge to determine the answer. Afterwards, People may be upset because of the majority change then, But that is the voters will This election. The only way to get through this is through cooperation by both sides of the aisle!! Grow up, People!! You will be working for us the taxpayers!! You're not showing respect for us the taxpayers or each other of yourselves. If you can't behave and get along, We the voting taxpayers will have to Replace you with With people that can!! ( Sorry for the random capital letters, My voice recognition doesn't always work properly,hehe)


eviljelloman t1_j1r5rau wrote

There’s nothing more fucking boomer than posting a bunch of both sides whataboutism using voice recognition on your phone. Fuck outta here.


stahleo t1_j1r82lo wrote

Boomer is defined as an elderly person. Why are you discriminating someone's age? Be better.

EDIT: Why does this sub condone age discrimination?


Zenith2017 t1_j1r8c1i wrote

Meanwhile, as boomers vote against basic human rights:


stahleo t1_j1r9346 wrote

Discriminate against a group of people because you don't like how they vote.

Makes sense. /s


Zenith2017 t1_j1rbeht wrote

Oh no did we call them boomers on a reddit thread


stahleo t1_j1rchdq wrote

Openly promoting age discrimination without any concern. Keep it classy, bigot.


jakopappi t1_j1rtvv0 wrote

Hey you got em! You got em good good for you keep up thr good lords work you're a saint!


Zenith2017 t1_j1rvswl wrote

.... Meanwhile, as boomers vote against basic human rights lmao hold on to yer outrage folks


stahleo t1_j1rwmlt wrote

I'm not outraged. I was more so curious why the open age discrimination.


Diarygirl t1_j1s7w0h wrote

As a conservative, you're outraged by whatever Fox News tells you to be outraged about 24/7


stahleo t1_j1s81tv wrote

I don't watch Fox News. As usual, you make an ass out of yourself when you assume things.


Diarygirl t1_j1s86y3 wrote

Luckily I don't care what MAGAts say about me.


stahleo t1_j1s8hkp wrote

MAGAts? What are you even taking about? Why continue to comment and assume incorrectly?

You're sharp as a bowling ball.


DavidLieberMintz t1_j1u50c7 wrote

In your own words, how do you define discrimination? When someone on the internet calls you names? Because that ain't it.


SendAstronomy t1_j1rulwo wrote

No, we discriminate you because your demographic is a majority of shitty people with a "got mine fuck you" attitude.

Huh, everyone like that votes republican? What a shock!


DavidLieberMintz t1_j1u4not wrote

So anytime someone is mean to you, it's instantly discrimination? I guess the boomers were the real snowflakes all along.


dclxvi616 t1_j1r8wjw wrote

> Boomer is defined as an elderly person.

It's a descriptive term for a person who was born between 1946 and 1964. That's actually quite different than "an elderly person."


stahleo t1_j1r9868 wrote

Oh, so the term was used as a compliment?


dclxvi616 t1_j1ra251 wrote

What is the point of using words at all if you're just going to read whatever the hell you want? "Boomer" is not equivalent to "an elderly person" just as "different" is not equivalent to "better".


stahleo t1_j1rd9q9 wrote

Sure, let's use your definition - someone born between 1946 - 1964.

So instead of discriminating against an "elderly person," it's against someone nearly 60 years of age and older. Where's the difference? There is none. It's the same.

If the primary reason you are calling them a "boomer" is because of their age group, then (in the way it was used) it is, in fact, age discrimination.


dclxvi616 t1_j1rdm3s wrote

>it's against someone nearly 60 years of age and older.

Again, you're getting this definition incorrect. Someone who is 80 years old right now is not a boomer.

>If the primary reason you are calling them a "boomer" is because of their age group, then (in the way it was used) it is, in fact, age discrimination.

Sure, it's age discrimination. It's generational discrimination. It's not a blanket discrimination against the elderly though. I said it's different, not better.


stahleo t1_j1re6j0 wrote

>Sure, it's age discrimination.

Great, we agree.


Steven_Snippert t1_j1rbgk3 wrote

It's not. It's defined as people born in the years after World War II until about 1964.


eviljelloman t1_j1wnyvj wrote

Being so entitled that you think a person insulting you on the internet is the same as discrimination is a peak white boomer move.

Now go on a rant about how I’m racist too. You know you want to, snowflake.


Prestigious-Buy1774 t1_j1rahv2 wrote

People with bad ass attitudes who are wannabe bullies need to grow the fuck up and take responsibility for their immature ways and stupid fucking decisions. YOU are the problem with this country right now. . YOU are the reason that we have this senile old jackass in the White House. YOU think because you throw out fucks you are tough. Anyone can do that. YOU want your own way, and don't care about other's rights, and have no cooperative attitude with the ability to compromise. YOU and the kiddies and toddlers like you have no place in any way shape or form in running this government. YOU and the those with YOUR kind of juvenile behavior have no respect for the USA. Our government was founded on compromise by all kinds opinions. YOU are obviously not capable of this. YOU need to keep your mouth shut and go back into your bedroom and play some more video games. YOU are not capable of handling real life situations. YOU need to get the fuck out of here! YOU , mental incompetent, need to shut the fuck up until you GROW UP, and throw that ballot away because YOU treat it as junk mail. Maybe , and if, you ever learn to appreciate the founding father 's intentions, should you have the right to vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


polgara_buttercup t1_j1rctz7 wrote

Intent of a Founding Father was to have a democracy that changed with the times, not stayed stagnant in the past.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson


drewbaccaAWD t1_j1ryp64 wrote

>YOU are the reason that we have this senile old jackass in the White House.

ahhh there it is, showing us your true colors now. Yes, yes... the problem is all those people with "bad ass attitudes" which you clearly don't have... sure, Jan.

ps. if you want people to read your hateful rants, learn to use paragraph breaks while you are using voice-to-text... no one is reading past the first line or two in a giant wall of text.


andrewcubbie t1_j1rvj54 wrote

This dudes account history. Oh baby


Zenith2017 t1_j1uqs1b wrote

It hurts me inside when I see deeply conservative gay men. Talk about self hatred


john_oldcastle t1_j1rwznf wrote

haha what a dufus
no one cares about your dumb disordered politics, you simpleton


eviljelloman t1_j1rugj0 wrote

“Senile old jackass”. Look in the mirror, boomer.


Zenith2017 t1_j1uqu2y wrote

I don't Know What you are Talking About . /s


yeags86 t1_j1shq35 wrote

So only white male landowners can vote.

And you wonder why “WE” voted how “WE” did. You’ve lost no rights, just the same your perceived right to discriminate as you see fit and have power over the people you disagree with.

I’d say get fucked, but you probably haven’t in a decade and are miserable about it.


SunOutrageous6098 t1_j1r8urq wrote

It’s not unchartered territory and we already have laws in place that dictate the timing of special elections.

The courts don’t need to determine “who has the power before they are sworn in”. The people already did and we voted for Democrats. The Democrats have the power until another election changes the majority.

“Do it in May” isn’t the answer because people don’t vote in Primaries, let alone ones in odd numbered years.

If you’re so concerned about the cost of elections consider this: Primaries are held so that two private organizations can determine which candidate to run. Why are tax payers footing the bill? Any referenda could simply go on the November ballot, when more people turnout anyway. Let the parties figure out who to run using their own damn money.

Voting by mail is 40% cheaper than voting in person.

Also, historically “we the voting people” don’t vote out obstructionists, especially not in Pennsylvania. Our legislature has been basically defunct for 2 years and a lot of them were re-elected. Nothing’s going to get done. I mean, at least nothing will get worse; but nothings going to get better either.


noodletropin t1_j1r7qqm wrote

Maybe the taxpayers who would lack representation in the state House until May would prefer to have representation before 40% of the year has passed?


Odd_Shirt_3556 t1_j1ro7og wrote

Maybe they should have not voted for a dead guy… they could have had a write in. Also maybe we should require that anyone running for another office must resign their current elected office… You know.. actually make them face consequences…


drewbaccaAWD t1_j1ryck0 wrote

You know, it would be very easy to compromise here and the GOP just acknowledge that the Dems won the majority, and will maintain the majority, and honor that starting the day everyone is sworn in. I'm sure if the GOP would be willing to do that in good faith, the Dems would be more than happy to have both elections on the same day.

It's a blatant power grab by the GOP trying to extend control by a few months.

I'm sure both sides have some interesting legal theories and none of this is cut and dry from a purely legal perspective. But in terms of what is best for the commonwealth rather than partisan nonsense, it's pretty clear that it's only the GOP turning this into a clusterfuck on the basis of a technicality that allows them to get away with it to some degree.

They lost the majority for this election cycle, they know they won't win those seats that are being vacated. This is just being sore losers.


RipTide275 t1_j1rct6c wrote

Thanks for the most unbiased reasonable post on this thread. Downvoted by the crazed liberals that overrun Reddit. Anything that isn’t 120% pro democrat triggers those immature snowflakes.