LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 539
0 members and 539 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 10-14-2004, 07:08 PM   #11
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
Explain this Please

Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
A different question that the others: are you suggesting the assumptions were faulty, something that could have been disproven by testing them through the process? Or are you suggesting that there was a malignant or dishonest intent?
I'm suggesting that the DEMs had a choice - Concede the election or fight under a colorable, though perhaps not likely argument.
Remember, Gore was going to give a concession speech and then pulled back. I think what happened was that word came down that there were grounds under which a challenge could be made, and Gore decided to fight it out.

Quote:
I believe these are very different things. Because the Supreme Court chose to value finality over certainty, we will never know whether the Dem's assumptions are faulty.
Except for the upteen audits done by nearly every news organization in the country, many of which done in conjunction with Big 4 auditing firms.
sgtclub is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 PM.