Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

The other likely alternative isn't violence, it's one side completely standing down and putting their faith in the counting process and judiciary doing their job effectively and objectively.

And unicorn farts.

 
pictured above: The "Brooks Brothers Riot", Florida 2000, interfering with the vote count

Nabb1: No matter the outcome, we're probably screwed but at least someone is going to haul in a metric ton of billable hours.

Between advertising and lawyers, I believe that our economy is becoming election based. Maybe other countries will begin outsourcing their elections to us and we can have a new election on the first Tuesday of every month.

When the recounts are out
All you have to shout now
Who's going to lawyer up

vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

With John "Obamacare" Roberts as chief justice? Bwahahaha!!!

StopLurkListen: The other likely alternative isn't violence, it's one side completely standing down and putting their faith in the counting process and judiciary doing their job effectively and objectively.

Except that's not what happened in 2000.

What happened in 2000 was Bush got a few hundred more votes than Al Gore so there was series of recounts. Did you remember the part where Al Gore sent lawyers to every single county in the state to have as many absentee ballots disqualifies as possible?

Or did you remember that elections are a legislative process but Al Gore circumvented the Republican Florida legislature and went to a more sympathetic Democrat controlled court?

Or did you remember what the SCOTUS ruling actually was? Which was that there were rules, the rules were followed, and that you can't go to court over it after the fact to change the rules?

Yup.

Maybe, just maybe, we should get some independent election monitors in the country, but who in the world does that sort of service these days?

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Some of these chucklefarks could use a good week in Syria to understand what the "ammunition box" part of their chants mean. You'd think the American Revolution was a joyful jaunt of freedom and patriotism and they growled the brits out of town, instead of a years-long violent rebellion with 100,000 bodies in the ground and countless more mutilated.

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

We're looking forward to it. But the computer model says it won't happen until 2017-2020.

vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

No you won't. Conditions still will not be right.

meat0918: Yup.

Maybe, just maybe, we should get some independent election monitors in the country, but who in the world does that sort of service these days?

Here's a good model.

It would be EPIC if it was too close to call, went to SCOTUS, and was ruled that Obama is president.......just to hear all of the butthurt Republicans turn into hypocrites.

Citrate1007: It would be EPIC if it was too close to call, went to SCOTUS, and was ruled that Obama is president.......just to hear all of the butthurt Republicans turn into hypocrites.

Anything less then a crushing defeat is a roaring endorsement of Mitt's lying, etch-a-sketch campaign method. The challenger pretty much always loses to the incumbent. If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics. Let's not hope for that, because political leaders around the world are watching this with great interest.

randomjsa: StopLurkListen: The other likely alternative isn't violence, it's one side completely standing down and putting their faith in the counting process and judiciary doing their job effectively and objectively.

Except that's not what happened in 2000.

What happened in 2000 was Bush got a few hundred more votes than Al Gore so there was series of recounts. Did you remember the part where Al Gore sent lawyers to every single county in the state to have as many absentee ballots disqualifies as possible?

Or did you remember that elections are a legislative process but Al Gore circumvented the Republican Florida legislature and went to a more sympathetic Democrat controlled court?

Or did you remember what the SCOTUS ruling actually was? Which was that there were rules, the rules were followed, and that you can't go to court over it after the fact to change the rules?

Someone's memory is selective, and it's not who you think.

How stupid.

Romney is going to win Florida and nobody cares.

Obama is going to win Ohio and everybody cares.

Bored Horde: If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics.

When have any of those things ever decided a presidential election? It's a glorified popularity contest, nothing more.

doyner: How exactly does one recount electrons?

Ohm man, you realy amped it up there.

Epoch_Zero: NOT ON THE RIGHT - FOR THAT WOULD BE ELITISM

Corporate Lawyers: Good
All other lawyers: Ambulance Chasing Bloodsuckers

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Reminds me of Nixon's statesmanship in 1960 - bygone days, huh.

Weaver95: vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.

Lucky thing they gave it to the guy with the most votes in Florida. Whew.

Weaver95: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

A running gun battle would be cool.

Nabb1: No matter the outcome, we're probably screwed but at least someone is going to haul in a metric ton of billable hours.

What with the lawyerin' and advertisin', bout 12 billion done been injected into the economy.

If lawyers are outlawed, only outlaws will have lawyers.

And no, "Sure we cheated but we would have won anyway" doesn't make it excusable.

Weaver95: vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.

We'll see. One of my deepest, most tinfoily fears is that it could happen again and then the Republicans would just go hard-core "Why do you hate America?" on anyone who questions it, like they did after 9/11. I've seen nothing in the past 12 years to suggest that the Dems wouldn't back down again under the right circumstances.

Citrate1007: It would be EPIC if it was too close to call, went to SCOTUS, and was ruled that Obama is president.......just to hear all of the butthurt Republicans turn into hypocrites.

"turn into"?!??!

BSAGOTLSVR?

Bored Horde: meat0918: Yup.

Maybe, just maybe, we should get some independent election monitors in the country, but who in the world does that sort of service these days?

Here's a good model.

>A concerned Canadian raises his hand

"Seconded!"

biyaaatci: I don't think the Dems will go down without a fight this time. We saw what happened the last time they tried to play nice. And you just know the Repubs will try to pull some BS impeachment nonsense if they lose. This could get extremely ugly.


You really should just unplug from everything for awhile and try relaxing.

Bored Horde: The challenger pretty much always loses to the incumbent. If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics.

Given the mass approval of things like Jersey Shore and Honney Boo, Boo, Ancient Aliens, etc. I think the American public is already there.

Both sides appear to also have factions ramping up the cheatin methods so the acquisition of lawyers is probably a good idea.

doyner: How exactly does one recount electrons?

I believe you've hit upon the entire strategy. One of my buddies works with the voting machine industry, and he swears there ARE ironclad ways to allow for a recount. But they aren't actually using them.

I don't want to sound like a Freeper, but how could that possibly be unless it's deliberate? We have the technology to review bank transactions going back decades, but we can't review votes cast 24 hours ago?

Sounds legit.

keylock71: Oooooooo... Look out, folks. We're dealing with a bad ass over here.

[alanschuyler.files.wordpress.com image 460x323]

The only thing that thinks he's a badass is his toilet after he's had Mexican.

Do we really need a President anymore?

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

I'd rather have the running gun battle. Thin the herd. I'll hide safely away while Americans eat each other. Good riddance to bad rubbish.