Centrist thread
Comments
-
https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/
The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.
The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.
"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.
Do you see the difference?
-
It was despicable of those 10 democrats to object to the election certifications in those cumulative three elections. Just as it was despicable of the 145 republicans who objected in this year's election.
Maybe @MelloDawg can make the centrist case for how they're the same magnitude of troubling. -
Claims of widespread voter problems and a want for election reform. The only difference I see is that 15 years later the Democrats don’t care about widespread voter problems nor do they want election reform.TheKobeStopper said:https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/
The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.
The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.
"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.
Do you see the difference?
Did you think you were making a point? A vote against certifying the EC is either sedition or it isn’t no matter the reason if one is being objective. You can’t say one attack on the EC is noble while another is sedition. -
But but but
It's different when we do it -
True. Republicans have shown that they're much more united in mounting these kinds of efforts.RaceBannon said:But but but
It's different when we do it -
I see two:TheKobeStopper said:https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/
The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.
The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.
"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.
Do you see the difference?
Lack of a one-sided media attempting to destroy the president since the day he took office.
Lack of social media.
-
sure.gif.TheKobeStopper said:https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/
The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.
The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.
"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.
Do you see the difference?
They fagged it up in 2000 and fagged it up again in 2016.
And how much 'aggressive election reform' did they actually do? And why aren't they still committed to 'aggressive election reform'?
-
Got Dominion control over elections without legislative approval, allegedlyPurpleThrobber said:
sure.gif.TheKobeStopper said:https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/
The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.
The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.
"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.
Do you see the difference?
They fagged it up in 2000 and fagged it up again in 2016.
And how much 'aggressive election reform' did they actually do? And why aren't they still committed to 'aggressive election reform'? -
Good point - they didn't specifically say it was going to be 'good' aggressive election reform now, did they?doogie said:
Got Dominion control over elections without legislative approval, allegedlyPurpleThrobber said:
sure.gif.TheKobeStopper said:https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/
The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.
The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.
"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.
Do you see the difference?
They fagged it up in 2000 and fagged it up again in 2016.
And how much 'aggressive election reform' did they actually do? And why aren't they still committed to 'aggressive election reform'?
-
Sure.likewesayno.gifGreenRiverGatorz said:
True. Republicans have shown that they're much more united in mounting these kinds of efforts.RaceBannon said:But but but
It's different when we do it
