"Election" by Trial

luvtolean · 10-19-2004, 7:35 PM

It sucked last time, and it looks like whoever loses will then fight it out in court again this time. I HATE the new divisiveness in our politics. What happened to admitting defeat, and the country unifying behind one leader? That's always been an important strength to our system.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...paign_legal_dc

Politics by lawyer.

Baketech · 10-19-2004, 8:12 PM

I hear you, but I also think that it is to be expected when the margin of victory is smaller than the margin of error inherent in the system....

IMO, the Democrats are in a real crack with this election, and they will do about anything to make it happen....

sheepofblue · 10-19-2004, 8:38 PM

If you want to see the real problem check the states that were close that the republicans lost yet no lawsuits, check the tickets and see who the trial lawyers contribute to. This is not a everyone is sueing issue. If legal action is started you need to defend yourself. The big lie is Bush stole the election with lawyers, yet Gore initiated the lawsuits.

luvtolean · 10-19-2004, 9:58 PM

Yeah, I agree with the problem Bake. I just HATE to see lawsuits becoming the status quo for elections...

Sheep, I'm not partisan on this issue. It is my belief neither party will behave well.

Baketech · 10-19-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

It is my belief neither party will behave well.

spillover · 10-20-2004, 7:38 AM

I wonder if we will have eventually have to slide the election date back and just incorporate the litigation into the process.

Baketech · 10-20-2004, 8:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spillover

I wonder if we will have eventually have to slide the election date back and just incorporate the litigation into the process.

Probably will happen unless a charismatic leader emerges that can break the bonds of the 2-party system...

(That could put the result margin back to a wider gap than the process margin...)

rocket · 10-20-2004, 8:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

Probably will happen unless a charismatic leader emerges that can break the bonds of the 2-party system...

(That could put the result margin back to a wider gap than the process margin...)

And then we can all get marks on our foreheads and hands. Can't wait.

luvtolean · 10-20-2004, 10:15 AM

I don't think the litigation is necessary.

Get rid of the electoral college and I think you'd see things go differently, including margin of victory.

Baketech · 10-20-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket

And then we can all get marks on our foreheads and hands. Can't wait.

Ummm, I wasn't referring to the emergence of an Orwellian figure....but rather a viable 3rd party candidate....perhaps Libertarian...

luvtolean · 10-20-2004, 11:13 AM

The libertarians currently are too "pure" meaning they don't violate their ideals. It's too bad really. I think lots of people are interested in a candidate that is:

Pro-choice
pro-environment
for fiscal responsibility
for small government (and the theoretical lower taxes that go with it)
pro-Second Amendment
not a religious whacko....

Baketech · 10-20-2004, 11:17 AM

And not in the corporate vest pocket...

rocket · 10-20-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

Ummm, I wasn't referring to the emergence of an Orwellian figure....but rather a viable 3rd party candidate....perhaps Libertarian...

Ummm, (does this connote an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of intellect?

)

As much as I'd be in favor of it... a Viable third party candidate is an oxymoron nowadays.

rocket · 10-20-2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

The libertarians currently are too "pure" meaning they don't violate their ideals. It's too bad really. I think lots of people are interested in a candidate that is:

Pro-choice
pro-environment
for fiscal responsibility
for small government (and the theoretical lower taxes that go with it)
pro-Second Amendment
not a religious whacko....

If you're flex on the 2nd ...Rudy Giuliani or Arnold would fit the bill.

luvtolean · 10-20-2004, 11:31 AM

I am VERY unflexible on the second amendment.

Aside from the fact Arnold is not native born, he has not been impressing me much lately.

rocket · 10-20-2004, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

The libertarians currently are too "pure" meaning they don't violate their ideals. It's too bad really. I think lots of people are interested in a candidate that is:

Pro-choice
pro-environment
for fiscal responsibility
for small government (and the theoretical lower taxes that go with it)
pro-Second Amendment
not a religious whacko....

#1 for me is I vote Pro-life (being a religious wacko and all

)
#2 is the 2nd Amendment.
If they are in line with these two they usually follow suit with small government, fiscal responsibility, and other conservative positions.

luvtolean · 10-20-2004, 11:38 AM

I understand...you're not for freedom of religion.

luvtolean · 10-20-2004, 11:50 AM

Also, I disagree with your last statement.

Bush is certainly "pro-life", is fairly good on the second amendment, but pretty much fails everything else miserably.

rocket · 10-20-2004, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I understand...you're not for freedom of religion.

I never said that ... I just have strongly held religious beliefs that point me towards a candidate that holds the same values as me.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

QuikMike · 10-20-2004, 11:59 AM

me, personally, I am

1) Pro-Life
2) Pro-environment
3) For fiscal responsibility
4) Smaller government
5) Pro-2nd to a certain degree
6) not a religious whacko(although I do believe we should have prayer in schools along with the a requirement for the Pledge of Allegiance...hell, we said it everyday when I was coming thru elementary and middle school)...

rocket · 10-20-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Also, I disagree with your last statement.

Bush is certainly "pro-life", is fairly good on the second amendment, but pretty much fails everything else miserably.

Again, I never said that Bush did. As a matter of fact his name was never brought up. Geez.

luvtolean · 10-20-2004, 12:01 PM

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm commenting on your beliefs.

You said you're pro-life because of your religious stance. It is your belief you should force your religion on others through legislation. In this case the issue is abortion.

luvtolean · 10-20-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket

Again, I never said that Bush did. As a matter of fact his name was never brought up. Geez.

No, I did in reference to your comment:

If they are in line with these two they usually follow suit with small government, fiscal responsibility, and other conservative positions.

Bush is a case study proving this wrong.