Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle for the US senate. Repeat of 2000 fiasco? NJ SC to intervene.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'd like to see someone from The Sopranos run......... ...........Torricelli..............oh yeah
    Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

    Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

    Comment


    • #17
      Is there anyone here who actually believes that if the situation were reversed the GOP wouldn't be trying to slime their way past the rule?

      Point 1: The court should deny the Dem request.

      Point 2: The Republicans are every bit as opportunistic, if not outright criminal, in their pursuit of power, as their utter contempt for the voting process in '02 showed once again.
      It is much easier to be critical than to be correct. Benjamin Disraeli

      Comment


      • #18
        No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Kepler
          Point 2: The Republicans are every bit as opportunistic, if not outright criminal, in their pursuit of power, as their utter contempt for the voting process in '02 showed once again.
          I bet you'd like to elaborate on this, which would please me as well. Perhaps I would then understand what you are talking about.
          He's got the Midas touch.
          But he touched it too much!
          Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

          Comment


          • #20


            Sometimes I really start to think it might be a little bit of fun being a lawyer in the US...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Roland


              Sometimes I really start to think it might be a little bit of fun being a lawyer in the US...
              My girlfriend seems to enjoy it.
              He's got the Midas touch.
              But he touched it too much!
              Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

              Comment


              • #22
                I couldn't stand it on serious matters. Guess she's not working in criminal law ?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Roland
                  I couldn't stand it on serious matters. Guess she's not working in criminal law ?
                  She volunteers for legal aid. It varies, but it's all "small" civil stuff. She works full time as a pharmacist (her original career), and it pays so much better, she can't afford to quit.
                  He's got the Midas touch.
                  But he touched it too much!
                  Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Low level courts are usually fun. With the american litigation "culture" it should be even more fun there.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      This is interesting:



                      Check both polls. I found the second one staggering.
                      No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I suppose they would have gotten the same result when asking who should be the republican candidate.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Perhaps, if the Republican had resigned, but that's beside the point. The Dems want a court fight, because they think they can make the voters think that the Republicans are trying to rob them of their vote by not allowing a replacement candidate, and cause a backlash that will carry the seat. This poll suggests that such a backlash will not happen.
                          No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think the Dems do have an argument. Is it reasonable to deny voters a choice based on a law stating 51 vs 36 days? What about another number of days? IMO it depends on why the law states that number, whether its arbitrary or whether other voters will be disenfranchised with less than 51 days (someone mentioned the military ballots).
                            We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
                            If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
                            Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              MTG,

                              You have no objection to the military being excluded from the voting process? The ballots have already been mailed and it is my understanding that some people have already voted. The Democrats are destroying themselves here.

                              This tactic is slime regrdless of who does it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Has anyone a clue why it takes 51 days to get the military ballots ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X