"Take to the streets"???

J

jimmy

New member
A caller on a talk show this morning said that if Bush wins the electoral vote, but not the popular vote, Americans should "take to the streets" to gain back the election that was stolen from them. He said that in any other country we would be battling tanks (presumably Bush's) with Molotov cocktails over this.

My word for this guy: idiot. IMO both Gore and Bush knew very well beforehand that they'd win by the electoral college or not at all. Both took their chances. That's the system. In as close a race, either could have wound up with an electoral victory and a popular loss. To say that Bush, by adhering to a Constitutional process, will have stolen the election from the people is idiocy. :mad:

Oh, did I mention that the caller was a Democrat? :rolleyes:

[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited November 08, 2000).]
 
I never heard of people "taking the streets" when Grover Cleveland won the EC, but lost the Popular vote. I don't know how other states handle rioting, but I don't think that a riot would work really well in Texas cities. The 2nd Amendment insures that our streets will be calm, unlike the citizens of California and New York cities.
 
Stupid yes...but you know very well that if the situation was reversed, all of us would be howling the same thing...
 
btr,
I dont think so, at least I wouldnt......one of the major differences I see between the democrats and the republicans has to do with the rule of law.......look how many dead vote for the democrats, how often they rig elections...look at bob dornans seat in california,......look last night at the St. Louis Ms........situation.......all handeled by democrats........I do think we seriously need to have investigated and prosecute the individuals responsibile for the illegal actions in elections...fubsy.
 
No, Eric, I can honestly say that I wouldn't. Yesterday morning, I really thought that "reverse scenario" was going to happen, and I'd thought about how I'd react. I decided that I had no choice but to abide by the rule of law and accept Gore even if he lost the popular election, taking solace in the fact that he would know he didn't have a strong mandate.

That violent moron on the radio should have done the same thinking.
 
I would still be saying the same thing. Leave the Constitution alone. If Gore loses, they are going to want to tear up the Constitution even more. I think the electorate should be split in states, I don't think it should be all or nothing. Maybe if you win 2/3 of a state, you get all or something like that, but in a race so close, an all or nothing is what gets people. Just an idea, but it shouldn't be a federal law. States should decide themselves if this is something they want to do.

Anyway, I have an idea about how to fix this country. Does anybody have any idea how open to seccesion certain Bush states are? I'll detail my idea in a later post.

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
I think you only need Texas to seced.

As far as the Electoral college goes. If every state gave 2 to the popular vote winner and then a proportionate amount to each candidate based on the percentage of the popular vote we would have today:

Bush - 270
Gore - 259
Nader - 6

And you would still have the liberals whining, "it's not fair"

*** And about "taking it to the streets"

Hmmm... wonder who would win... whiney liberals armed with molotav cocktails or justifable self-defense. A person approaching me with a cocktail is certainly going to receive an answer when he starts to throw it (if not before.)

[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited November 08, 2000).]
 
"And about "taking it to the streets" Hmmm... wonder who would win..." So true. I laughed hard-core when I read that KAM.

The electorial college victor will be president, no matter what the popular vote is, or whether or not anybody likes the electorial college system. Everybody (including Gore supporters) knew the rules when they started playing this ball game.

[This message has been edited by Country Boy (edited November 08, 2000).]
 
The difference between this election and, say, Milosovich stealing the Yugoslavian elections, is that there the clear majority of people obviously voted against him, and there was obvious voter fraud - while here we have an even split, so uniformly even that two marginally different ways of counting votes come up with notably different results.

The popular vote differs by very little - hardly something to "take it to the streets" over. Maybe something for some sore losers to wave a few banners or overload talk shows about for a few days, but certainly not something akin to the overthrow of Milosovich (mass demonstrations which were, BTW, carefully orchestrated by the police/military there).

_IF_ a large group of the losing voting block does "take to the streets" in a truly serious fasion, they will be met with equal numbers of the winning voting block...and will discover, the hard way, one of the key ideological differences between the two voting blocks.
 
No, I would not be saying the same thing if the situation were reversed! I believe in the rule of law under the Constitution and I believe in the wisdom of the men that fashioned that document-even when it gives me lumps.

------------------
Byron Quick
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ctdonath:

_IF_ a large group of the losing voting block does "take to the streets" in a truly serious fasion, they will be met with equal numbers of the winning voting block...and will discover, the hard way, one of the key ideological differences between the two voting blocks.[/quote]

I seriously doubt equal numbers. Although the key ideological difference more than makes up for it.


Battler.
 
Oh, and call the BATF out on the liberals - molotov cocktails are covered under the 1934 NFA (like machineguns/short-barreled shotguns) and require a $200 tax EACH. Bet you thought it was just a milk bottle and a quart of regular - nope.

:)

Battler.
 
I agree that I will stand behind the Constituation and the election process.

I know it is easy to say from this side, but the Electroal process is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Look at where Gore won and where Bush won. The EC process was designed to give lower population rural areas some say in the elections. Gore pandered to the cities, the populous areas, and he only won a very few States, the most populous States. Bush won most of the country by far, and took all the rural areas. The EC process was designed SPECIFICALLY for this purpose, to insure that the cities and populous areas did not hold all the weight.

Funny thing is: maybe the liberals are seeing the light on their gun views now. They are talking about taking the street with molotov cocktails? Ha! Letting your voices be heard, and power to the people is what the Second Article of the Bill of Rights is all about. What these liberals have not figured out yet is that they are disarmed, but the other side is not. And they have chosen to make it that way.
Which is also why, if they win, they will even more so fight to disarm us.
 
This 'taking to the streets' is not melodrama. I sometimes lurk a very liberal board who are mostly minority classed. The talk of riot is being tossed around with some trying to coordinate the event.

I've not heard California mentioned as one of the target points but I will be ready nonetheless.
 
There are always a few hotheads on both sides of the fence, ready to scream "To the barricades!" whenever they don't get their way. Most of them don't have the cojones of a juvenile Chihuahua and would hide under their beds if it ever really came to fighting in the streets. Which it won't. The comments above are right in giving credit to our Founders for a largely self-correcting system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top