Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

colsohlibgal

(5,275 posts)

11. Bad Memories

Reply to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:45 PM

Dec 2016

The damage the Supreme Court caused by stopping the 2000 Florida recount is staggering.

The right doesn't want any recount, any real accountability, of election results. So what if every mismatch between exit polling and the final result all favor the right.

Our elections are worthy of a Banana Republic.

Paper ballots and secure custody and counting need to happen but the democrats just will not push it, they are like an abused wife afraid to fight back against an abusive spouse.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump forces file Bush v Gore complaint to stop Wisconsin recount [View all] Land Shark Dec 2016 OP

K&R... spanone Dec 2016 #1

While I don't expect the recounts to change anything.... LisaM Dec 2016 #2

The corruption of democracy continues apace. How can we trust elections after this one? Coyotl Dec 2016 #3

Good question Coyotl Land Shark Dec 2016 #5

This graph should not be ignored. Cracklin Charlie Dec 2016 #7

Great way to visualize some of the evidence. Land Shark Dec 2016 #13

And the states w/o Senate races have half the 2016 red shift! Coyotl Dec 2016 #14

Very pursuasive, we need beyond reasonable doubt, which may or may not be prohibited from discovery. lonestarnot Dec 2016 #18

Election officials can't prove a legal election occurred at any level of proof Land Shark Dec 2016 #30

Figures...the lying scumbags run to Bush v Gore for cover. roamer65 Dec 2016 #4

Yeah they want to keep options open to rule the opposite if shoe on other foot. Nt Land Shark Dec 2016 #9

so nice to see you posting landshark. mopinko Dec 2016 #6

Thanks mopinko! Nt Land Shark Dec 2016 #8

Really? Bush V. Gore was not supposed to set a precedent (SCOTUS own statement) McCamy Taylor Dec 2016 #10

Please read the OP, not being a precedent only makes it worse Land Shark Dec 2016 #15

Bad Memories colsohlibgal Dec 2016 #11

K&R bdamomma Dec 2016 #12

Recounts are a threat moondust Dec 2016 #16

Yammering Yam doesn't want to be put on display for his cheat. lonestarnot Dec 2016 #17

The GOP is hiding something. Tricks they've been using for the past 15 years. C Moon Dec 2016 #19

Bush v Gore itself states it does not set a precedent, and is limited to that case. LS_Editor Dec 2016 #20

Not being precedent (if true) only means that same case could be decided either way next time Land Shark Dec 2016 #24

There is another alternative. Automatic partial recounts of a random sample pnwmom Dec 2016 #21

question. barbtries Dec 2016 #22

See #24. It hardly matters what they said if cases are factually quite similar. Land Shark Dec 2016 #25

well it's moot this election barbtries Dec 2016 #28

Land Shark! I remember your great posts from the dark days of the 2004 theft MadLinguist Dec 2016 #23

Thanks much, well, we see each other when there is common cause. :) Land Shark Dec 2016 #26

K&R red dog 1 Dec 2016 #27

Larry Tribe has, however, since said no jurisdiction for Bush v Gore ( political question doctrine) Land Shark Dec 2016 #29