Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Both sides are ramping up the "get out the lawyers" effort this election season   (foxnews.com) divider line 84
    More: Florida, Robert Bauer, White House Counsel, Bush campaign, provisional ballots, Delaware Democratic Party, electoral colleges, absentee ballots, Obama White House  
•       •       •

1616 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 1:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 03:09:23 PM  

ole prophet: Do we really need a President anymore?


Checks and balances, supreme court appointments, declarations of war - how do they work?
 
2012-11-02 03:10:57 PM  
¿FoxNews? Lemme guess... both sides are bad so...

(reads article)

... wow, I'm surprised it was only tangential. Still, party-war is everywhere in any given fox article:

Lawyers will observe at targeted polling places, joined by tea party activists and voting abuse critics on the Republican side and civil rights and union groups on the Democratic side.
 
2012-11-02 03:15:22 PM  
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-11-02 03:17:15 PM  

Rug Doctor: 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.


Of course it's deliberate. Diebold cannot release the proprietary code for their voting machines without the competetion unfairly stealing their ideas and their money. The ability to have a group of people individually cast votes electronically, have those votes counted, and announce a winner is patented Diebold software.

Which is why they should sue Drew over the inclusion of the smart/funny buttons.
 
2012-11-02 03:22:15 PM  

Epoch_Zero: ole prophet: Do we really need a President anymore?

Checks and balances, supreme court appointments, declarations of war - how do they work?


Sunset clauses, voting, AND don't f@cking kill people who don't believe what you do.

How does that work?
 
2012-11-02 03:22:21 PM  

Epoch_Zero: ole prophet: Do we really need a President anymore?

Checks and balances, supreme court appointments, declarations of war - how do they work?


I'll bet he's one of those libertarians whose solution to the whole "gay marriage" thing is to get rid of marriage entirely.

/ Congrats on the Florida tag, subby, it really ties the room headline together.
 
2012-11-02 03:29:50 PM  

Rug Doctor: 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.


If that happens, I hope we see a few years worth of old-fashioned rioting, like we had in the 1960s.

Rioting like they had in France, 1787-1789, would be better.
 
2012-11-02 03:33:50 PM  

bookman: 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.


You mean the model is showing us normal people getting in running gun battles with lawyers and politicians in just a few years? Oh YEAH! ... Wait, you're not using the Year Zero model, are ya?
 
2012-11-02 03:34:27 PM  
I really don't know how Americans can have faith in their electoral process after what happened in 2000. Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but didn't the various court decisions follow the party the judge was associated with? i.e. Dem judge->judge in favor or dem, Rep judge->judge in favor of reps. Not even the appearance of an hint of a slight smell of impartiality.
 
2012-11-02 03:38:44 PM  

talkertopc: I really don't know how Americans can have faith in their electoral process after what happened in 2000. Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but didn't the various court decisions follow the party the judge was associated with? i.e. Dem judge->judge in favor or dem, Rep judge->judge in favor of reps. Not even the appearance of an hint of a slight smell of impartiality.


Supreme Court. The one people love when it agrees with them, and despise as partisan hacks when it doesn't. Kerry didn't win against Bush either, but you still had wingnuts claiming the whole process was rigged etc etc.

Last bastion of the weak minded is the partisan conspiracy theory.
 
2012-11-02 03:45:55 PM  

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.


The century didn't start until January 1, 2001. Bush v. Gore was decided December 12, 2000.
 
2012-11-02 03:51:18 PM  

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'll bet you're a blast at parties, Debbie Downer.
 
2012-11-02 03:53:32 PM  
Fox News something lawyers derp
 
2012-11-02 03:56:15 PM  
It's not going to require lawyers, unless there is some significant fraud. Ohio is going to go for Obama. Probably Virginia and Florida, probably Colorado, definitely NH, NV and Iowa. NC is probably going to go to Mitt by 1-2 pts.

The only really semi-plausible case is that Romney wins Colorado, NC, and Virginia, and then wins Florida (due to the shorter early voter period and disenfranchisement) and Ohio (due to vote counting fraud).

I think Ohio's out of his reach though, and probably Colorado/Virginia also.
 
2012-11-02 03:56:26 PM  
I drive around a lot in Oklahoma for my job and right now AM radio is going nuts saying this is Obama's Katrina

And whar the generators, at the nytimes for the marathon,

Thanks a lot

Photo op the hurricane and then go to Vegas just like Benghazi

What the fark is wrong with this president wanting to campaign during an election?
 
2012-11-02 04:03:10 PM  

jso2897: 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'll bet you're a blast at parties, Debbie Downer.


I haven't been on fark long, but Weaver95 does seem like a nice and smart enough guy. He probably should worry about less politics and spend more time with some good old fashion pussy cat.
 
2012-11-02 04:04:59 PM  

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


I don't think Obama is in as desperate a spot as to try changing a state's election law through the circuit court system during the election.
 
2012-11-02 04:05:10 PM  
Some day, we're going to grow up and face the fact that just as opinion polls and scientific experiments have margins of error within which you can't draw any definitive conclusions, so do elections. If the candidates differ by a few thousand votes out of 100 million cast, then the only statistically defensible answer to the question of which candidate the majority actually prefer is "we don't know." In that case they should flip a coin.
 
2012-11-02 04:05:55 PM  

Tamater: 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!"


Except when we get election monitors, this will be the result...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/ constitution/item/13336-texas-wa r ns-un-affiliates-monitoring-us-electio n-of-prosecution-risk

http://shark-tank.net/2012/10/26/dont -mess-with-texas-connie-mack-bri n gs-un-monitoring-issue/

There's more, of course. Texas in particular does NOT want the U.N. checking for voter suppression or intimidation. I wonder why?
 
2012-11-02 04:12:19 PM  
Ask Al Fanken what he thinks about litigating elections. That was a total sleaze move by the Republicans.
 
2012-11-02 04:18:13 PM  

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 dunno. Honestly, now -- wouldn't you welcome the chance to shoot some Floridians in the street? It has a certain appeal.
 
2012-11-02 04:26:04 PM  

JolobinSmokin: What the fark is wrong with this president wanting to campaign during an election?


He's black a Democrat.

Do they need any other reasons?
 
2012-11-02 04:27:32 PM  
Why would anyone care? I've seen maps on fark that show Romney winning every state and that I should deal with it. So I'm coping.
 
2012-11-02 04:41:38 PM  

Jgok: Tamater: 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!"

Except when we get election monitors, this will be the result...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/ constitution/item/13336-texas-wa r ns-un-affiliates-monitoring-us-electio n-of-prosecution-risk

http://shark-tank.net/2012/10/26/dont -mess-with-texas-connie-mack-bri n gs-un-monitoring-issue/

There's more, of course. Texas in particular does NOT want the U.N. checking for voter suppression or intimidation. I wonder why?


Um. . . because the UN will take their guns?
 
2012-11-02 04:46:25 PM  

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


Um, SCOTUS upheld the original count on grounds that procedure was followed, which Bush won. The completed recounts mostly had Bush winning as well, though they didn't matter at that point.

They didn't rule that Bush was president so much as they ruled that the laws in place to ensure an acceptable count, agreed to in advance by all parties and the voters, had been followed, and you don't get to randomly recount because you just now realized that there is some error range now that they've said something which you don't like. It was a matter of "you don't have the grounds to challenge, if you had a problem with this you should have brought it up before the election, numbnuts".

//Among the recounts that Bush still would have won? The initial recount the Gore campaign requested. Amusingly, Bush won using that recount by a _wider_ margin than he did in the original count.
//Lot of revisionist history going on the further we get from 2000. Do people really fail at memory that hard? It was an attempt to use the courts to change election results through the courts by Gore that failed, not one by Bush that succeeded.
 
2012-11-02 05:14:25 PM  

Granny_Panties: jso2897: 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'll bet you're a blast at parties, Debbie Downer.

I haven't been on fark long, but Weaver95 does seem like a nice and smart enough guy. He probably should worry about less politics and spend more time with some good old fashion pussy cat.


Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

I was always afraid when he quoted me
 
2012-11-02 05:18:29 PM  

Aar1012: Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?


He's a lesser demon helping us to find the Eye of Jupiter.

After that, look out.
 
2012-11-02 05:23:53 PM  

whidbey: Aar1012: Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

He's a lesser demon helping us to find the Eye of Jupiter.

After that, look out.


For the record, I think he's a great guy. I just remember what he used to be. The right just moved to far right for him
 
2012-11-02 05:24:38 PM  

Aar1012: I think he's a great guy. I


Me too. His posts have been nothing short of awesome in the past few years.
 
2012-11-02 07:34:44 PM  

whidbey: Aar1012: Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

He's a lesser demon helping us to find the Eye of Jupiter.

After that, look out.


I am not a demon. and I am certainly not a vampire. last I checked, I wasn't a lich either...although that'd be really fricking cool...

way I figure it, the Democrats are heading the right direction. might as well hitch a ride and help 'em out.
 
2012-11-02 08:28:12 PM  

Weaver95: 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.


Ummmm... No. That way the lawyers go home with bazallions in their pockets and we're left with WTF was that?

I say we get us a new rope and find us a nice tree..
 
2012-11-03 04:00:24 AM  

Aar1012: Granny_Panties: jso2897: 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'll bet you're a blast at parties, Debbie Downer.

I haven't been on fark long, but Weaver95 does seem like a nice and smart enough guy. He probably should worry about less politics and spend more time with some good old fashion pussy cat.

Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

I was always afraid when he quoted me


So true but back then there were actual intelligent conservative voices on this site, Weaver included. I assume the bastardization of the right is what turned them into either libertarian or Democratic.
 
2012-11-03 08:44:11 AM  

Karac:
Diebold cannot release the proprietary code for their voting machines without the competetion unfairly stealing their ideas and their money.


How is that possible. I have been assured the competition would only make an exact copy of the code. Diebold would still have the original and therefore nothing was stolen.
 
2012-11-03 02:02:13 PM  

Weaver95: whidbey: Aar1012: Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

He's a lesser demon helping us to find the Eye of Jupiter.

After that, look out.

I am not a demon. and I am certainly not a vampire. last I checked, I wasn't a lich either...although that'd be really fricking cool...

way I figure it, the Democrats are heading the right direction. might as well hitch a ride and help 'em out.


Well something happened. I think Mirror Universe Weaver must have had you in kidnapped in suspended animation or something...
 
Displayed 34 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report