• @blazera
    link
    English
    -52 months ago

    Yes thats what we are currently discussing. They done the paperwork, they got the signatures.

    But uh oh democrats decided those signatures arent allowed, in a challenge brought upon by democrats to a democrat controlled supreme court.

    Just a reminder you are arguing against letting a political party participate in an election. The gravity of that is immense to me, i think it would be to you too if you were seeing it from an outside perspective. Like we see Russia banning candidates.

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart
      link
      32 months ago

      I thought this decision was made by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court because they didn’t follow that state’s rules for eligibility.

      Actually this is what I’m arguing.

      It’s a couple comments up if you’d like to see yourself.

      • @blazera
        link
        English
        -42 months ago

        Yes they did. They jumped through all the hoops and got all the electors they needed.

          • @blazera
            link
            English
            -42 months ago

            Right, same as in Russia. Its obvious BS

              • @blazera
                link
                English
                -42 months ago

                A state body regulating elections. it was even a ruling that decided some signatures werent allowed.

                • SatansMaggotyCumFart
                  link
                  42 months ago

                  Can you try this comment again because I’m not picking up what you’re putting down.

                  • @blazera
                    link
                    English
                    -42 months ago

                    The exact same thing that happened in Pennsylvania. A state body ruling that some signatures werent allowed, so the candidate is barred from participating in the election.