Supreme Court Won't Address Blatant Election Fraud
#21
(02-24-2021, 10:41 PM)farronwolf Wrote: The SCOTUS followed their rules by not hearing the case.   They require 4 justices to agree to hear the case.   4 did not, only 3.

I think you might be confused. No one here is arguing that 3 votes is sufficient to hear the case.

Everyone here is arguing that Pennsylvania's election officials, in order to deliver the stolen election to Chairman Biden, violated their own laws.

6 of the 9 SCOTUS justices, whether they were choosing to be complicit in the fraud or merely capricious, neglected their duty to hear the case.
🤡 There's no such thing as a Catholic Democrat  🤡
Reply
#22
(02-24-2021, 10:52 PM)farronwolf Wrote: Not certain if you are an American or not, but maybe you need a lesson in civics, and how our Constitution works.

Besides the fact this new topic you introduce has nothing to do with this thread, what is your point?

I'm not American but I know about America.
Reply
#23
(02-24-2021, 11:03 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 10:41 PM)farronwolf Wrote: The SCOTUS followed their rules by not hearing the case.   They require 4 justices to agree to hear the case.   4 did not, only 3.

I think you might be confused.  No one here is arguing that 3 votes is sufficient to hear the case.

Everyone here is arguing that Pennsylvania's election officials, in order to deliver the stolen election to Chairman Biden, violated their own laws.

6 of the 9 SCOTUS justices, whether they were choosing to be complicit in the fraud or merely capricious, neglected their duty to hear the case.

Did you read the dissenting opinion?   Did you happen to catch the part where the questionable activity would not have affected the outcome of the election?

Do you also realize that states set their own rules regarding how elections are handled in their own states, and as long as they follow minimal guidelines established by the Feds, it is up to the states how their elections are handled. 

I guess you also ignore the facts that no widespread fraud in the past election has been established.   

I am pretty new to the forum, but I would think on a Catholic forum, members would seek truth above all else.   Maybe I am mistaken what some believe it means to be Catholic.
Reply
#24
(02-24-2021, 11:09 PM)farronwolf Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 11:03 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 10:41 PM)farronwolf Wrote: The SCOTUS followed their rules by not hearing the case.   They require 4 justices to agree to hear the case.   4 did not, only 3.

I think you might be confused.  No one here is arguing that 3 votes is sufficient to hear the case.

Everyone here is arguing that Pennsylvania's election officials, in order to deliver the stolen election to Chairman Biden, violated their own laws.

6 of the 9 SCOTUS justices, whether they were choosing to be complicit in the fraud or merely capricious, neglected their duty to hear the case.

Did you read the dissenting opinion?   Did you happen to catch the part where the questionable activity would not have affected the outcome of the election?

Do you also realize that states set their own rules regarding how elections are handled in their own states, and as long as they follow minimal guidelines established by the Feds, it is up to the states how their elections are handled. 

I guess you also ignore the facts that no widespread fraud in the past election has been established.   

I am pretty new to the forum, but I would think on a Catholic forum, members would seek truth above all else.   Maybe I am mistaken what some believe it means to be Catholic.

It's pretty clear that you've come here only to lie.
🤡 There's no such thing as a Catholic Democrat  🤡
Reply
#25
(02-24-2021, 11:15 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 11:09 PM)farronwolf Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 11:03 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 10:41 PM)farronwolf Wrote: The SCOTUS followed their rules by not hearing the case.   They require 4 justices to agree to hear the case.   4 did not, only 3.

I think you might be confused.  No one here is arguing that 3 votes is sufficient to hear the case.

Everyone here is arguing that Pennsylvania's election officials, in order to deliver the stolen election to Chairman Biden, violated their own laws.

6 of the 9 SCOTUS justices, whether they were choosing to be complicit in the fraud or merely capricious, neglected their duty to hear the case.

Did you read the dissenting opinion?   Did you happen to catch the part where the questionable activity would not have affected the outcome of the election?

Do you also realize that states set their own rules regarding how elections are handled in their own states, and as long as they follow minimal guidelines established by the Feds, it is up to the states how their elections are handled. 

I guess you also ignore the facts that no widespread fraud in the past election has been established.   

I am pretty new to the forum, but I would think on a Catholic forum, members would seek truth above all else.   Maybe I am mistaken what some believe it means to be Catholic.

It's pretty clear that you've come here only to lie.



One thing you will find is I don't lie.   I don't like liars, since liars will do anything pretty much.   Once one starts to lie without thought, there is no bad action they won't do.

We just got rid of a President that was like that, super big liar and zero moral character.   Made me wonder why so many people who called themselves Christians liked him so much.
[-] The following 1 user Likes farronwolf's post:
  • Evangelium
Reply
#26
(02-24-2021, 11:36 PM)farronwolf Wrote: We just got rid of a President that was like that, super big liar and zero moral character.   Made me wonder why so many people who called themselves Christians liked him so much.

And now we have one who claims to be Catholic yet supports murdering babies. I'd rather have the liar who supports policies that are good for the country, just like I'd much rather have a Pope who teaches the faith clearly while fornicating than one who is chaste but teaches heresy, or at least confusion.

If your standard for 'politicians we can vote for' requires sinlessless, there are only two people who qualify, and, as we're reminded, you don't vote for kings. Or queens.
[-] The following 3 users Like Paul's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, HailGilbert, jovan66102
Reply
#27
(02-25-2021, 09:12 PM)Paul Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 11:36 PM)farronwolf Wrote: We just got rid of a President that was like that, super big liar and zero moral character.   Made me wonder why so many people who called themselves Christians liked him so much.

And now we have one who claims to be Catholic yet supports murdering babies. I'd rather have the liar who supports policies that are good for the country, just like I'd much rather have a Pope who teaches the faith clearly while fornicating than one who is chaste but teaches heresy, or at least confusion.

If your standard for 'politicians we can vote for' requires sinlessless, there are only two people who qualify, and, as we're reminded, you don't vote for kings. Or queens.

Well since you don't get to pick who is the Pope, that really isn't up to you is it.   If you are referring to Francis' teachings being confusing, maybe it is because you are trying to read to much into what he says.   

I am not looking for sinless politicians, I am looking for ones with character.   I don't have to agree with everything they do, but when they don't have character you can't trust anything they do, even if you like it.   The reasons behind their actions and the consequences may not be understood and repercussions may be long in the making.   

Of course all this is way off the topic of folks not liking the SCOTUS following their own rules.
Reply
#28
(02-25-2021, 09:44 PM)farronwolf Wrote: Well since you don't get to pick who is the Pope, that really isn't up to you is it.   If you are referring to Francis' teachings being confusing, maybe it is because you are trying to read to much into what he says.

So I can't have a preference for something I have no control over? Sounds like I shouldn't have an opinion on abortion, either, since I'm not a woman.

I don't have to read anything into Francis' teachings. If I take him at his word, then the death penalty is always immoral because of the murderer's dignity as a human being, and unrepentant adulterers can receive Communion. The only problem is that 2000 years of Catholic teaching say otherwise.


(02-25-2021, 09:44 PM)farronwolf Wrote: I am not looking for sinless politicians, I am looking for ones with character.   I don't have to agree with everything they do, but when they don't have character you can't trust anything they do, even if you like it.   The reasons behind their actions and the consequences may not be understood and repercussions may be long in the making.


Well, Trump's quite the character...

No, he wasn't perfect, and surrounded himself with questionable people. But Hillary wasn't even an option, and Harris is at least as bad. We'll see how long Biden stays in office - but even if he makes it through all four years, he's bad for the country. Trump brought unemployment down, cracked down on illegal immigration, stopped the US from funding abortion abroad, and even if his Supreme Court picks suck, they're likely going to be to the right of RBG. And if all he cared about was power and wealth, he already had that before he ran, and now he's hated by some very powerful people and could even go to prison. Why put yourself in that if you don't care about the country? No, he's not the Messias, and shouldn't be treated like one, but it really shouldn't be surprising why Catholics, particularly conservative ones, like his policies. The man himself isn't as important. Besides, I don't trust any politicians.
Reply
#29
(02-25-2021, 10:27 PM)Paul Wrote: Well, Trump's quite the character...

No, he wasn't perfect, and surrounded himself with questionable people. But Hillary wasn't even an option, and Harris is at least as bad. We'll see how long Biden stays in office - but even if he makes it through all four years, he's bad for the country. Trump brought unemployment down, cracked down on illegal immigration, stopped the US from funding abortion abroad, and even if his Supreme Court picks suck, they're likely going to be to the right of RBG. And if all he cared about was power and wealth, he already had that before he ran, and now he's hated by some very powerful people and could even go to prison. Why put yourself in that if you don't care about the country? No, he's not the Messias, and shouldn't be treated like one, but it really shouldn't be surprising why Catholics, particularly conservative ones, like his policies. The man himself isn't as important. Besides, I don't trust any politicians.

He surrounded himself with quite a few folks who ended up in prison or are currently indicted.   I would say that is a reflection of his character.

I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump.   Neither was worthy of the office.

Unemployment along with all other economic number followed the trend they were on prior to him being in office.   That trend started in late 2009 early 2010.   That is not really an accomplishment of his per se.  

Illegal immigration was at an all time low under Obama.  

He did stop funding for abortion abroad.

There is no position in the world more powerful than the President of the US.   Trump is a narcissist, plain and simple.  There is nothing conservative about him, whether fiscally, morally, or religiously, or any other aspect of conservatism one might lay out there.  

Of course all of this is way, way off topic, but since the original topic, and the fact that the SCOTUS simply followed its own rules, it isn't a big deal that the case was denied.
Reply
#30
Quote: Trump is a narcissist, plain and simple.

So was Obama. But you didn't say that.

Quote:I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump. Neither was worthy of the office.

Did you vote for Obama? You are singing his praises a lot in this thread.
--BobCatholic 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)