Secretaries of state at the state level set a lot of those rules. That's why there was a lot of mail in voting, extensions, etc. the last election.
Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑ When you show that a court finding is needed you can make that statement.
At the federal level Congress sets the rules. Remember, moron, you thought you would see them invoke the 14th following the clown show hearings. WIth NO court finding.
And reposting something once is no endless repetition. It is either due to your ignorant use of strike thru OR you telling a lie. But now I know it puts you in Meltdown Mary mode I will keep that tactic in my back pocket.
Tell me what would satisfy this requirement.When you show that a court finding is needed you can make that statement.
Lying crackhead hearsay.....I object!Remember, moron, you thought
You suffer acute numeracy issues.And reposting something once
No ****.ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑ Secretaries of state at the state level set a lot of those rules. That's why there was a lot of mail in voting, extensions, etc. the last election.
R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑ Tell me what would satisfy this requirement.
Lying crackhead hearsay.....I object!
You suffer acute numeracy issues.
You claimed you already posted it.Tell me what would satisfy this requirement
It's about what would satify you.
I've addressed your inability to comprehend.Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑ If you had something showing congress needs a court ruling or finding you would have posted it by now. An opinion piece won't suffice. THere is no precedent. The Constitution does not say it. THere is no law about it.
If you had actually read the second citation I posted, (I know you didn't because you thought it was the first one I posted, MORON) you would see some of the requirements for Congress to act. You go read that and get back to me.
Your understanding ways to pretend life isn't self evident is limitless compared to the limitations adapting as uniquely alive now.R. Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑ I've addressed your inability to comprehend.
You don't demonstrate any understanding of the citations you post.
Askholio, you didn’t read the second citation. You thought is was a repost of the first. So go ahead reman blissfully ignorant. You posted jack **** to support ASSertions.R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑ I've addressed your inability to comprehend.
You don't demonstrate any understanding of the citations you post.
Tiny,Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 5:51 pm » wrote: ↑ Askholio, you didn’t read the second citation. You thought is was a repost of the first. So go ahead reman blissfully ignorant. You posted jack **** to support ASSertions.
Take the L and move on to your next *** whoopin’.
See ya tomorrow, Retardo Smarmy.
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!
ORIGINALISM.... DUH!
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑ Haven't you done enough to demonstrate your witlessness this morning, Rippy?
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑ Are you at all familiar with your rule regarding repetition?
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!
R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑ I've addressed your inability to comprehend.
You don't demonstrate any understanding of the citations you post.
What's the point of me reading a citation you don't understand?Huey » 06 Mar 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑ No, you haven't. What you have demonstrated is you do not read citations provided for you. If you did you would not have called the second citation, the one that explains the issues to you, repetitive.