Ohio challenge

[J. J.]

This is really, really, really bad precedent if the Democrats do this. We do not want to even hint that Congress can un-do a Presidential election because they don't like the results. There could be a full-blown Constitutional crisis in the future when it transpires that the Congress is not controlled by the same party as the evident Presidential victor, and the party with the Congressional majority seeks to overturn the election.

Let me ask this: we hear how much is demanded of Bush to "reach out" and include Democrats in his decision making. How in the heck can a baseless challenge to his election do anything but spoil a spirit of co-operation?

Bush reached out? What crack are you smoking?

Once again jFRAUD has shown in many limitations.  Even if all 93,000 votes were found to have been for Kerry, Bush still would have carried Ohio.  We now have demostrated that not only jFRAUD's reading skills are lacking, but so are his mathematical ones.

As for "reaching out" the "No Child Left Behind" Act was both a centerpiece of the Bush domestic policy and had bipartisan support.  I read some place that one of it's supporters was Ted Kennedy, and I kinda think that possibly he might be a Democrat.

[J. J.]

Here is an interesting quote from the article cited in the first part of the thread.  Some people looking at it "found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."   Those people were Kerrry and his attornies.

[J. J.]

Yeah, I have no mathematical skills, right.  Hahahahaha.

I'm glad you realize you are mathematically challenged.  If it will help I will be happy to explain to you how subtration works

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that democrates are flipfloppers?  Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is fairly to tell that you went to a school system where there was no testing at all.

[J. J.]

Here is an interesting quote from the article cited in the first part of the thread.  Some people looking at it "found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."   Those people were Kerrry and his attornies.

If there's ever a murder, you'll say that there's no evidence that there's anything that would bring the person back to life.

I wouldn't think that every dead person is a murder victim.  I don't think that every every defeat in an election is due to fraud (I'll include Washington in that one).

I'm the one who supported the recount by the two third party candidates, because it was their legal right.

[J. J.]

Yeah, I have no mathematical skills, right.  Hahahahaha.

I'm glad you realize you are mathematically challenged.  If it will help I will be happy to explain to you how subtration works

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that democrates are flipfloppers?  Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is fairly to tell that you went to a school system where there was no testing at all.

Oh yeah, that's why I'm in grad school.

Exceptionally low standard, obviously. 

[J. J.]

Yeah, I have no mathematical skills, right.  Hahahahaha.

I'm glad you realize you are mathematically challenged.  If it will help I will be happy to explain to you how subtration works

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that democrates are flipfloppers?  Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is fairly to tell that you went to a school system where there was no testing at all.

Oh yeah, that's why I'm in grad school.

Exceptionally low standard, obviously. 

Do you ever having anything useful to say, J. Juvenile?

Yes jFRAUD, that even John Kerry, and his lawyers found nothing.  I have no problem with looking, but there needs to be proof.  I've said the same thing, repeatedly, about Washington.

[J. J.]

Quit whining fern.  Your candidate got beat.  End of story.  Your crybaby whining on this board day after day is pathetic.

The problems with jFRAUD is that he is too immature to understand this.  He does even read the links he sites.

Ironically, even the Congress members today, who raised the Ohio issue (again the Loony Left) said that the did it not to challenge the results, but to call attention to what the preceived as voting problems, e.g. long lines.

There were very long lines at my polling place at 7:00 AM on Election Day, largely because a pretty sizable percent of the voters showed up at the same time.  When I voted at about 2:15 PM, I was the only voter at the polls; somebody else came in as I was voting.  This is the kind of problem the Loony Left, like j FRAUD, of the party complain about when they complain.

I would use the words "Loony Left" to describe this branch.  It doesn't represent the Congressional Democratic leadership here or Kerry himself, just the fringe group.

[J. J.]

Pollworkers per voter were higher in minority areas.

Actually, this isn't the issue.  A voter spends very little time with the poll worker.  It's the time that voter spends in the booth voting that tends to be most time consuming part.

Further, if OH is anything like PA was, there were a large number of volunteers informing voters of their rights regarding voting.  When I voted, and when I drove past other polls, these volunteers outnumbered the voters.  You could tell from their tee shirts.

The Loony Left, like jFRAUD, seems to want to be able to tell voters at what time of day to vote.

[J. J.]

If the Democrats had just wanted to be obstructionists, they would have challenged Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, and so on.

They were not doing it, by their own admission, because they doubted the vote result.  That was made clear.

Now, if they want to talk about increased funding for localities to increase voting capacity, that's different. 

They are still going to have problems if all the voters in the district decide to vote at the same time.  You are not going to be able to legislate that.

[J. J.]

Fear not.  They will.

Enjoyable to watch their meltdown after every election.  And, they can't figure out why the electorate won't put them back in power.

Please, let them claim fraud where ther is none and let the LoonyLeft speak for the pae party.  We'll still have a two party system in 20 years, Republicans and Libertarians.

At least kerry and the Democratic Congressional leaderhip has the good sense not to be invoved.

[J. J.]

So now the Democrats want to mount legal challenges to any election they do not win.

Tell your boy Rossi up in Washington to give it up then.

In case you have not notice, I've been saying he should without proof.  

If some proof surfaces, I may change my opinion.  I can only think of two that were overturned, neither was a governor.

[J. J.]

The members of Congress challenging admitted that they didn't really question the results.  It was for political purposes and it backfired.

[J. J.]

Most of them didn't question the results, but they questioned the process.

How did it backfire?  People who care about election reform appreciated what they did.  People who were already angry continue to be angry.  Most people have no idea it even happened.

Because they did it under the guise of challenging the election.  It, by using that vehicle, becomes another example of "Sore Loserman."

[J. J.]

I think it's more an example of "things that happened that nobody knows about."

There were other ways to do that, that would have been appropriate.

[J. J.]

There were other ways to do that, that would have been appropriate.

I think it was very appropriate, but that really has nothing to do with whether or not it "backfired."  I'm assuming that by "backfire," you mean that it made them look bad to the public.  I don't agree, because I don't think most people have any awareness of it at all.

The only thing that it generated was a soundbite, and the soundbite was, "We're challenging the electoral vote count."  That's how it sounded and was reported.