|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform |
![]() |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:28 PM Original message |
So it's January 7th and the election has been officially contested by |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bemis12
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:31 PM Response to Original message |
1. It would have been decided |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms
![]() |
Sat Jan-01-05 02:30 PM Response to Reply #1 |
65. Pardon me, all, but I'd like to sneak in this thought. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kansas Wyatt
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:33 PM Response to Original message |
2. It removes Shrub's alleged mandate. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:36 PM Response to Reply #2 |
6. I don't know about that? He still can tout the 3.5 million extra votes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SicTransit
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:41 PM Response to Reply #2 |
8. I've seen this mentioned a few times - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Freddie Stubbs
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:34 PM Response to Original message |
3. You are assuming that a Senator will actually contest the results |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:35 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. I am assuming they won't for the reasons I stated actually. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 06:50 PM Response to Reply #3 |
31. Didnt Gore ask that no senator step forward?-- 2000 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Freddie Stubbs
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 07:14 PM Response to Reply #31 |
32. That didn't stop some members of the House |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 07:19 PM Response to Reply #32 |
33. right--but my point is that there must have been at lest 1 Senator in 2000 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 09:15 PM Response to Reply #33 |
52. Not necessarilly. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Freddie Stubbs
![]() |
Fri Dec-31-04 01:58 AM Response to Reply #33 |
61. It may have just been an excuse, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Snivi Yllom
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:36 PM Response to Original message |
5. correct |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Amaryllis
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:40 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. Hopefully it will get enough attention that awareness will be raised about |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:48 PM Response to Reply #7 |
11. I think we can accomplish that without a formal contest? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Snivi Yllom
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:05 PM Response to Reply #11 |
16. reform is a separate issue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Amaryllis
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:07 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. It will also call attention to fraud, and challenge Bush's mandate. We |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 09:17 PM Response to Reply #17 |
53. It just depends on the *type* of coverage we get. Will we be marginalized |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mirrera
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:46 PM Response to Original message |
9. I have faith |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:47 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. If that's the case, we don't need the January 6th deadline. Bush can |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Amaryllis
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:08 PM Response to Reply #10 |
18. Can't be impeached unless they can prove he knew about fraud. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ConstitutionGuy
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 05:14 PM Response to Reply #9 |
26. You faith is displaced |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Razorback_Democrat
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:50 PM Response to Original message |
12. As I understand it, there is a 2 hour debate, followed by a vote |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nitetalker
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 09:50 PM Response to Reply #12 |
54. Yep, that's right -- either way * will be inaugurated |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mdb
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 01:53 PM Response to Original message |
13. David Lytel has a great article on this. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:02 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. He essentially draws the same conclusion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mdb
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:11 PM Response to Reply #15 |
19. I was just going to post this alternative. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SicTransit
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:23 PM Response to Reply #19 |
20. mdb - "550,000 affidavits may be easy enough" - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mdb
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 03:05 PM Response to Reply #20 |
24. Not from David Lytel. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor O
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:36 PM Response to Reply #15 |
48. A petition and an affadavit are two different things. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
demwing
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:00 PM Response to Original message |
14. Well, Best Case scenario is that the fraud is so obvious by then |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
melissinha
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:31 PM Response to Reply #14 |
22. Please create a separate thread on Lytel's story |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
demwing
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 04:31 PM Response to Reply #22 |
25. I think you responded to the wrong person |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 07:59 PM Response to Reply #14 |
37. LOL. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor O
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:43 PM Response to Reply #14 |
49. Obvious? In order for any Republicans and most members of the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
demwing
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 10:25 PM Response to Reply #49 |
56. I assume you didn't really read the post |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor O
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 10:37 PM Response to Reply #56 |
58. Yup you are right, I did not read the whole post. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
demwing
![]() |
Fri Dec-31-04 02:49 AM Response to Reply #58 |
62. You know what? You rock. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
oneold1-4u
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:31 PM Response to Original message |
21. One week! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Qutzupalotl
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 02:31 PM Response to Original message |
23. It will help immensely. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bunny planet
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 07:23 PM Response to Reply #23 |
34. It's got to be the kind of paper trail called True Vote systems (I think |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
gdub
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 05:32 PM Response to Original message |
27. Here's what happens |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:00 PM Response to Reply #27 |
38. Excellent point about the media. Though I fear they will cover the issue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
IndyPriest
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:43 PM Response to Reply #27 |
50. No, I think if both houses eject OH's electors |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PaganPreacher
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 10:28 PM Response to Reply #50 |
57. Not uncharted waters. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
gdub
![]() |
Sat Jan-01-05 02:05 PM Response to Reply #57 |
63. I am working on a detailed piece on this for my blog |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Generator
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 05:36 PM Response to Original message |
28. Speaking truth to power is not nothing! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
s-cubed
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 06:17 PM Response to Reply #28 |
29. The 2 houses don't have to decide anything immediately: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
delphine
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:03 PM Response to Reply #29 |
40. Except that in your historical example, the two houses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor O
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:27 PM Response to Reply #40 |
47. If you read the post, in this thread that outlines the stepsm then |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor O
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:19 PM Response to Reply #29 |
45. Incorrect. See link |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor O
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:44 PM Response to Reply #29 |
51. Also I believe the law was changed in 1887, n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:01 PM Response to Reply #28 |
39. Never said it was "nothing" I just caution those who seem to think it's |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 06:23 PM Response to Original message |
30. Yes. Democracy, not fast food. Every time we get someone |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 07:23 PM Response to Reply #30 |
35. Power to the People -- right on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KoKo
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 07:53 PM Response to Original message |
36. Reposting what I said to Will Pitt..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:04 PM Response to Reply #36 |
41. Good post, though looking at the machines should happen regardless. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straight Shooter
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:11 PM Response to Original message |
42. One possible benefit is it gives more ammunition to Arnebeck's case. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor O
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:17 PM Response to Reply #42 |
43. Arnebeck's case is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straight Shooter
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 10:51 PM Response to Reply #43 |
59. Sunshine came softly through my window today ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msongs
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 11:44 PM Response to Reply #59 |
60. thank you, Donovan hehe eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
k8conant
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:17 PM Response to Original message |
44. It would draw it out more if more than one state is contested... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor O
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 08:26 PM Response to Reply #44 |
46. Yes, but realistically no other state is going to be contested. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fescue4u
![]() |
Thu Dec-30-04 10:03 PM Response to Original message |
55. It'll be decided on Jan 6th |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LittleClarkie
![]() |
Sat Jan-01-05 02:10 PM Response to Original message |
64. A couple of things |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Quakerfriend
![]() |
Sat Jan-01-05 02:40 PM Response to Reply #64 |
66. Love your way of thinking, LittleClarkie! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thu Jun 20th 2024, 02:20 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC