Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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)

−79

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.

59

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?

−41

Zenith2017 t1_j1r8c1i wrote

Meanwhile, as boomers vote against basic human rights:

32

stahleo t1_j1r9346 wrote

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

Makes sense. /s

−30

Zenith2017 t1_j1rbeht wrote

Oh no did we call them boomers on a reddit thread

15

stahleo t1_j1rchdq wrote

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

−19

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!

11

Zenith2017 t1_j1rvswl wrote

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

8

stahleo t1_j1rwmlt wrote

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

0

Diarygirl t1_j1s7w0h wrote

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

3

stahleo t1_j1s81tv wrote

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

1

Diarygirl t1_j1s86y3 wrote

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

2

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.

0

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.

3

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!

9

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.

2

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."

23

stahleo t1_j1r9868 wrote

Oh, so the term was used as a compliment?

−11

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".

11

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.

−5

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.

7

stahleo t1_j1re6j0 wrote

>Sure, it's age discrimination.

Great, we agree.

2

Steven_Snippert t1_j1rbgk3 wrote

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

18

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.

1

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

−52

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

23

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.

13

andrewcubbie t1_j1rvj54 wrote

This dudes account history. Oh baby

8

Zenith2017 t1_j1uqs1b wrote

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

3

john_oldcastle t1_j1rwznf wrote

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

5

eviljelloman t1_j1rugj0 wrote

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

3

Zenith2017 t1_j1uqu2y wrote

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

2

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.

2

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.

12

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?

6

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…

−5

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.

5

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.

−31