NC Supreme Court race - Riggs ahead +734 | Griffin loses in Fed Court, Concedes

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodoheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 460
  • Views: 15K
  • Politics 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think some people on here do. Or maybe they are just upset that he used his legal rights. Hopefully the majority of folks aren't like that.
Click to expand...
The government can’t legally stop me from calling you a dumb fuck, but that doesn’t mean it would be right for me to call you a dumb fuck.

Do you see how having the legal right to engage in bad behavior doesn’t make that bad behavior the right thing to do?
 
Calheel said:
The government can’t legally stop me from calling you a dumb fuck, but that doesn’t mean it would be right for me to call you a dumb fuck.

Do you see how having the legal right to engage in bad behavior doesn’t make that bad behavior the right thing to do?
Click to expand...
Yes. That is bad behavior that is not the right thing to do.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yes. That is bad behavior that is not the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Now you're getting it. What Griffin did - after the second recount - was bad behavior and not the right thing to do. He had to insist on a third friggin' recount. Riggs added 70 votes in the partial hand recount and Griffin added 56. Bipartisan teams conducted the hand recounts. State law dictates that was it. The last straw for Griffin. He should have conceded. But NOOOOOO (said in my best Steve Martin impersonation). The votes had, at that time, been counted three times. The dumbshit kept on and on and on.

That was bad behavior and it was not the right thing to do.

Your insistence that people on this board thought he didn't deserve to get "due process" or that folks on here would deny him due process, or whatever it is you're going on about, is total horse hockey. It's not the right thing to do and it's certainly bad behavior on your part. You're getting called out on it.
 
Centerpiece said:
Now you're getting it. What Griffin did - after the second recount - was bad behavior and not the right thing to do. He had to insist on a third friggin' recount. Riggs added 70 votes in the partial hand recount and Griffin added 56. Bipartisan teams conducted the hand recounts. State law dictates that was it. The last straw for Griffin. He should have conceded. But NOOOOOO (said in my best Steve Martin impersonation). The votes had, at that time, been counted three times. The dumbshit kept on and on and on.

That was bad behavior and it was not the right thing to do.

Your insistence that people on this board thought he didn't deserve to get "due process" or that folks on here would deny him due process, or whatever it is you're going on about, is total horse hockey. It's not the right thing to do and it's certainly bad behavior on your part. You're getting called out on it.
Click to expand...
You missed the subtle joke.

Anyhow, I did write this earlier: "I think some people on here [want to deny him due process]. Or maybe they are just upset that he used his legal rights. Hopefully the majority of folks aren't like that."
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think some people on here do. Or maybe they are just upset that he used his legal rights. Hopefully the majority of folks aren't like that.
Click to expand...
Griffin had the legal right to demand a recount and challenge whether votes were properly cast under the law that existed at the time of the election. Griffin did not have the "right" to seek to change the rules of the election after the fact so that votes that were properly cast under existing law could be thrown out, and that could he could be retroactively declared the winner; and especially not to make his challenges in such a way that likely D votes would be thrown out while likely R votes cast in the same way would not; and the fact that the NC appellate courts indulged those challenges is embarrassing.

Hope this helps break through whatever cognitive dissonance fog you seem to be in with respect to this issue.
 
rodoheel said:
Griffin had the legal right to demand a recount and challenge whether votes were properly cast under the law that existed at the time of the election. Griffin did not have the "right" to seek to change the rules of the election after the fact so that votes that were properly cast under existing law could be thrown out, and that could he could be retroactively declared the winner; and especially not to make his challenges in such a way that likely D votes would be thrown out while likely R votes cast in the same way would not; and the fact that the NC appellate courts indulged those challenges is embarrassing.

Hope this helps break through whatever cognitive dissonance fog you seem to be in with respect to this issue.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that his argument was that the votes that he wanted to throw out were not properly cast because they didn't include certain things.

I don't believe he was trying to change the rules so much as arguing a certain interpretation of the rules on what constitutes a legally cast ballot.

He made his argument and the courts rejected it. I'm glad he was given access to the court system to decide this question, and I'm glad the court system rejected his argument. This is the system we have set up for deciding these issues.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
You missed the subtle joke.

Anyhow, I did write this earlier: "I think some people on here [want to deny him due process]. Or maybe they are just upset that he used his legal rights. Hopefully the majority of folks aren't like that."
Click to expand...
I know. That’s really what I was commenting on, the fact that you think some on here wanted to deny him due process. Maybe I’ve misread the entire thread. Who makes you think that? What was said? Was it the bit about “he should be disbarred”? I don’t think anyone on here wanted to deny him due process. He sure as heck got his due, and they processed the shit out of the issue. Too much so and it was poorly executed by the State. He was trying to game the system and (finally) the system said enough. The fact that he kept on and on continuing to try and game the system is where he was acting in bad faith, bad behavior. A judge trying to game the system, the very system he’s supposed to adjudicate in good faith, needs his pee pee whacked. “Bailiff! Whack his pee pee!”
 
Centerpiece said:
I know. That’s really what I was commenting on, the fact that you think some on here wanted to deny him due process. Maybe I’ve misread the entire thread. Who makes you think that? What was said? Was it the bit about “he should be disbarred”? I don’t think anyone on here wanted to deny him due process. He sure as heck got his due, and they processed the shit out of the issue. Too much so and it was poorly executed by the State. He was trying to game the system and (finally) the system said enough. The fact that he kept on and on continuing to try and game the system is where he was acting in bad faith, bad behavior. A judge trying to game the system, the very system he’s supposed to adjudicate in good faith, needs his pee pee whacked. “Bailiff! Whack his pee pee!”
Click to expand...
I think I conflated the sentiment of being really, really upset he pressed his legal rights with not wanting him to have those legal rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top