Here is another example of liberals not facing the facts. The original count showed that Bush had won. After the election there were numerous recounts that showed that Bush had indeed won.

 

See post #43. You have a great way of immediately labeling and jumping on someone without knowing them or reading ALL that they say.

 

As I pointed out, I NEVER said Bush really lost the election. I talked about the perception of events and players in the events. :thumb:

First of all I was very well aware of the 2 seperate decisions and their votes. Maybe you should consider giving up the mind reading trade.

 

You even spelled out the truth of the decisions. The first decision was on the procedure but the second decision was as you put it "the remedy" which effectively ended the counting and declared the election over. If my use of "gave the election" offended you, my apologies. I've never looked at it as a tainted election but to not admit the "appearance" of collusion was my point and if you REREAD my post you will see I agreed with the decisions and outcomes. Geesh. And for good measure here is the statement again:

 

The man with largest popular vote lost. He lost when a recount was halted by an administration whose Governor was the winning candidate's brother. The Supreme Court ruled along party lines and practically gave the election. I think the process worked. Some did not. The appearance of political collusion was heavy but riots didn't break out and system ruled and moved on. I'd say we were pretty divided then.

 

I choose to point out that just because you and I agree that the decision was right and that at no time did Bush trail in the counts the perception is what haunted the election (not the facts). If this had happened in any other state (say Virginia) the perception factor would not have been there and the country would have moved on easier.

 

I also stick to the my argument. Despite appearances there were no riots.

 

Although the tone of your post would not indicate a knowledge of the true findings of Bush v Gore, I am glad to hear that you are so informed. It is a shame that the media and the recent history books and related accounts seem to ignore these facts. But, then, I'm sure it is too much to expect honesty in reporting events. That has certainly been proven in recent months.

To answer the original question...

 

1. If Obama loses I think there will be riots in major cities.

2. If Obama wins I think there will be celebration riots much like in college towns when said college wins the NT in football or basketball. You know, cars turn over, couches set on fire, stuff like that.

Although the tone of your post would not indicate a knowledge of the true findings of Bush v Gore, I am glad to hear that you are so informed. It is a shame that the media and the recent history books and related accounts seem to ignore these facts. But, then, I'm sure it is too much to expect honesty in reporting events. That has certainly been proven in recent months.

 

And the TONE of your response seems to have a hard time admitting that I made the statement plain in the original post.

 

Just in case you missed it, here it is again:

The man with largest popular vote lost. He lost when a recount was halted by an administration whose Governor was the winning candidate's brother. The Supreme Court ruled along party lines and practically gave the election. I think the process worked. Some did not. The appearance of political collusion was heavy but riots didn't break out and system ruled and moved on. I'd say we were pretty divided then.

 

 

Everything I listed is true. IN all practicality the election was given to Bush (the winner) by the decision of the Court in the 5-4 decision.

 

I stated plainly where I fell on the issue and you chose to react to the fact that I outlined the perceptions from the other side of the aisle.

To answer the original question...

 

1. If Obama loses I think there will be riots in major cities.

2. If Obama wins I think there will be celebration riots much like in college towns when said college wins the NT in football or basketball. You know, cars turn over, couches set on fire, stuff like that.

 

Would there be a backlash among McCain supporters if Obama wins and some celebrate as you mention above?

 

Reread the Jack Johnson reactions I posted. Some of the backlash riots were vs. those celebrating his win in the ring.

 

I just am curious why you think only 1 and 2 as likely and not the scenario I posted just above this.

Would there be a backlash among McCain supporters if Obama wins and some celebrate as you mention above?

 

Reread the Jack Johnson reactions I posted. Some of the backlash riots were vs. those celebrating his win in the ring.

 

I just am curious why you think only 1 and 2 as likely and not the scenario I posted just above this.

Do I think there is a chance McCain supports riot if Obama wins, no. Do I think there is a chance that some that oppose Obama take some kind of action, yes...there is a chance. I think there are racist groups, skin heads, kkk, aryan brotherhood types, that would cause trouble if Obama wins. Do I think conservative republicans will take to the street and riot, nope.

 

I think there are some many fanatical left wing wackoos that are so sure Obama wins, and so want Obama to win that if he doesn't they will feel cheated some how and will riot. Now if he wins I think they will celebrate until the cows come home.

 

As far as the Johnson example I don't think that happens. There aren't enough people excited about McCain. I truly believe if McCain wins more people will be excited about Obama losing then McCain winning. It could be my dog that won, the fact that it was McCain really has nothing to do with it.

And the TONE of your response seems to have a hard time admitting that I made the statement plain in the original post.

 

Just in case you missed it, here it is again:

The man with largest popular vote lost. He lost when a recount was halted by an administration whose Governor was the winning candidate's brother. The Supreme Court ruled along party lines and practically gave the election. I think the process worked. Some did not. The appearance of political collusion was heavy but riots didn't break out and system ruled and moved on. I'd say we were pretty divided then.

 

 

Everything I listed is true. IN all practicality the election was given to Bush (the winner) by the decision of the Court in the 5-4 decision.

 

I stated plainly where I fell on the issue and you chose to react to the fact that I outlined the perceptions from the other side of the aisle.

 

I read post #43, yet here you still say the election was given to him, while he did lose the popular count, the election turns on the electoral count as you say you understand. He won the election, although I can understand how some, who do not understand the presidential election process, would be upset when their candidate wins the popular vote, but does not become President. Which could happen in this election, for either Presidential hopefull.

Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, and Huey Newton would love this talk about riots. Now those were guys who knew how to stir up a crowd.

Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, and Huey Newton would love this talk about riots. Now those were guys who knew how to stir up a crowd.

 

 

 

Just a little bit. :lol:

Just a little bit. :lol:

:thumb:

I think at some point the people will have to stand together and buck the goverment, no matter who is elected.

No riots either way, much to the disappointment of those with an active hatred for Obama.

Why must it be assumed that those responsible for the riots necessarily would be the Obama supporters--thus making the "Obama haters" happy? I doubt that there's anyone (especially on this board) that would be happy about rioting.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 24, 200817 yr by Birdsfan

I guess I'd have to disagree on this one. I am old enough to remember Watts, Kent State, the 1968 Democratic National Convention, etc. I truly do not believe that we will see anything similar; unless, as has already been noted, the election somehow turns into an appointment.

 

I didn't vote yet, but I am also able to remember Cincinnati. I hope nothing like this happens nationwide; but these days, who knows?

Just a little bit. :lol:

Those guys had old J. Edgar worried. Let's not forget Angela Davis and Malcom X.

"...we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggest; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea --

 

Yes. We. Can."