|
Post by stormwarden on Apr 4, 2009 20:38:03 GMT -5
The charges were dropped because of a mistrial, Lt. Fred, that doesn't preclude them from trying again.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 4, 2009 20:51:30 GMT -5
The charges were dropped because of a mistrial, Lt. Fred, that doesn't preclude them from trying again. Actually it wasn't a mistrial. I looked it up after Fred corrected me. He was acquitted because of prosecutorial misconduct. Under that situation, it does preclude them from trying again.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Apr 4, 2009 20:56:12 GMT -5
Thanks for that. I should have paid more attention to the article.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Apr 4, 2009 21:06:19 GMT -5
From what I've seen, the logic is that the legal issues around him may have caused people who would have voted for him to vote against him and so people want Begich to step aside so that a new election could take place. If people wanted to be reasonable about it, they'd do something similar to the recall election in California: put out a petition, set a minimum number of signatures, and go from there. If the minimum is met, we have a recall election in 2010. If not, then Begich keeps his job. Your credibility on the issue of logic is questionable. Stevens was not "cleared", rather the charges were dropped due to prosecutional misconduct, after a mistrial was declared. His guilt or innocence were NOT established. Actually, he was convicted. It was the conviction that was thrown out over prosecutorial misconduct, not the charges. And Sky, since when does the American system of democracy include a clause that after an election is over you can call of a do-over just because you don't like the outcome or because "new information" has come to light about one of the candidates? Would that really be a good precedent to set? EVERY election from here on out would be endlessly contested. At some point you have to say, dude, it sucks but you lost. When it was Gore on the recieving end of that suck-stick, the Reps didn't seem to have a problem with it....
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 4, 2009 21:32:43 GMT -5
At some point you have to say, dude, it sucks but you lost. When it was Gore on the recieving end of that suck-stick, the Reps didn't seem to have a problem with it.... Of course, now that it's Franken (I know this isn't the same case, but it's a great comparison to the Gore instance) and he's winning, they'll see it through to the bitter end.
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Apr 5, 2009 17:26:17 GMT -5
For Series of Tubes Guy, he lost the election fair and square. Why should Alaskans have to pay for an extra election so he can regain his job.
Now, I love his "the internet is a series of tubes!" speech as much as anyone else, why should he be allowed back in the Senate after he lost the election?
Alaskan politics seem to be very corrupt, at least to me.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 5, 2009 20:15:37 GMT -5
For Series of Tubes Guy, he lost the election fair and square. Why should Alaskans have to pay for an extra election so he can regain his job. Now, I love his "the internet is a series of tubes!" speech as much as anyone else, why should he be allowed back in the Senate after he lost the election? Alaskan politics seem to be very corrupt, at least to me. In a state with more rural area than anywhere else and your biggest politician for the country is Sarah Palin, none of this really comes as a surprise. I wonder how many people out of the total state population even know what a ballot box is let alone where to find one
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Apr 5, 2009 20:26:42 GMT -5
My favorite Alaska moment is still the one during the last election when the reporter from CNN asked this old guy in a far-northern region of Alaska (he was dropping off, I'm not kidding, a load of furs in town with a purchasing agent) if he was going to vote for Sarah Palin.
His response? "Who's Sarah Palin?" The reporter says that she is the governor of the State of Alaska, and the old guy says "Alaska's a state?"
Classic.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 6, 2009 1:15:00 GMT -5
I dunno, I still put my laughs on the newspaper incident "So Mrs. Palin, what papers do you read?" Palin *deer in headlights stare*
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 6, 2009 1:53:29 GMT -5
I dunno, I still put my laughs on the newspaper incident "So Mrs. Palin, what papers do you read?" Palin *deer in headlights stare* Obviously asking a person what papers they read is the liberal media playing, "Gotcha," reporting.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 6, 2009 3:02:57 GMT -5
That was what the GOP came up with.
Ironbite-funny....didn't do too well in the polls.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 6, 2009 5:47:47 GMT -5
.... And Sky, since when does the American system of democracy include a clause that after an election is over you can call of a do-over just because you don't like the outcome or because "new information" has come to light about one of the candidates? ... Well if that is the case, can we unelect Reagan and Poppy Shrub? Because seriously that just did not work out at all.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 6, 2009 10:54:06 GMT -5
.... And Sky, since when does the American system of democracy include a clause that after an election is over you can call of a do-over just because you don't like the outcome or because "new information" has come to light about one of the candidates? ... Well if that is the case, can we unelect Reagan and Poppy Shrub? Because seriously that just did not work out at all. Hey, the country still exists, doesn't it? I count that as a win. Depressingly enough.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 6, 2009 21:06:27 GMT -5
.... And Sky, since when does the American system of democracy include a clause that after an election is over you can call of a do-over just because you don't like the outcome or because "new information" has come to light about one of the candidates? ... Well if that is the case, can we unelect Reagan and Poppy Shrub? Because seriously that just did not work out at all. Seriouslly...do the GOP even exist in the same reality as the rest of the country? They want a lawfully elected offical to step down just cause during the election there was some information over their candidate? What? The fact he's a 2 face lying weasal? Yeah...ain't happening. Ironbite-try again in 6 years.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 6, 2009 21:21:26 GMT -5
Oh, but they wouldn't do that in 2000 when their man took a position through less than admirable ways...I wonder why
|
|