Since it's been hinted at, what do you guys think?

Yes!
And the LA TImes will be the first to report it. :rolleyes:

The ACLU already tried to stop the recall because it would disinfranchise minority voters, the case was thrown out because the harm was speculative. After the election I'm sure they will file a protest with the court.

I also expect to see some people trying to start another recall if Arnold becomes govenor.

I think most of us here expect court challenges. However, should some coincidence prevail and the latest posting be correct:

SOURCES: NETWORKS TO CALL RACE AT 8:01 PM PACIFIC TIME, AS VOTING OFFICIALLY ENDS...

LATEST EXIT POLLS SHOW 59% VOTE 'YES' FOR RECALL, TOP CAMPAIGN AND MEDIA SOURCES TELL DRUDGE REPORT, 51% FOR SCHWARZENEGGER, 30% FOR BUSTAMANTE, 13% MCCLINTOCK... DEVELOPING...


EXIT POLLS SHOW LANDSLIDE: RECALL, SCHWARZENEGGER POISED FOR EASY WIN

A big victory could preclude some of the court challenges. But I doubt it.

wow, better than I expected. Hopefully his team can clean things up, and hopefully before any of your registrations are due, haha

Just goes to show that you guys know nothing about Democrats, no matter how much you try to speak for them. All four of you voted 'Yes', but where is the cry??? Gray Davis already called Arnold to congradulate him on his victory and assure him that he would make the transition smooth. Conservatives, always so sure of themselves.... :rolleyes:

Did anyone see how immature Davis' democrats were during his concession speech? Everytime Davis said Arnold's name, the crowd roared into boos. :rolleyes: When Arnold mentioned Davis' name in his speech, I barely heard a boo from the crowd. lol :D

You must not have heard the same Arnold speech, because the speech I heard, Arnold had to gesture the booing down so he could continue to speak praise about Davis' composure.

He had to gesture to only a handful of people ;)

Well the good news is that Prop 53 and 54 failed, and McClintock isn't governor :D

Originally posted by lex400sc
Just goes to show that you guys know nothing about Democrats, no matter how much you try to speak for them. All four of you voted 'Yes', but where is the cry???

Originally posted by lex400sc
In fact if he is voted governor, I'll be first to sign the petition to recall him. (from this thread: http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97895&highlight=recall)

:egads:

(sorry, I just had to do this)

I'm also glad Prop 54 didn't pass :thumbup:

Sorry, but where did I cry fraud????? :confused: :confused:

You're right, you didn't claim fraud. I'm just showing that you would recall him just for being elected ;)

Just to prove a point. The recall system is inherently flawed. You can recall anyone anywhere in the state for no reason at all and spend up to a hundred million tax dollars doing so with the consent of only 12% of the voting population. I think the fact that that previous statement is true is absurd beyond belief. It totally undermines democracy. If Arnold reforms the Recall Clause of the state Constitution, I will give him much props, but I doubt it. :(

Originally posted by lex400sc
Just goes to show that you guys know nothing about Democrats, no matter how much you try to speak for them. All four of you voted 'Yes', but where is the cry??? Gray Davis already called Arnold to congradulate him on his victory and assure him that he would make the transition smooth. Conservatives, always so sure of themselves.... :rolleyes:

Sorry to disappoint you but you can post here without voting in the poll.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Just to prove a point. The recall system is inherently flawed. You can recall anyone anywhere in the state for no reason at all and spend up to a hundred million tax dollars doing so with the consent of only 12% of the voting population. I think the fact that that previous statement is true is absurd beyond belief. It totally undermines democracy. If Arnold reforms the Recall Clause of the state Constitution, I will give him much props, but I doubt it. :(


Always so negative.... Lets see what happens.... I didn't support Arnold, but I would like to see what he does. Its time to start supporting him (untill he give "you" a reason not to"..

Then I'm sure you'll spark up some more debate threads.

Originally posted by RON430
Sorry to disappoint you but you can post here without voting in the poll.

At the time I wrote that, there were four votes for yes, zero votes for no, and four posts on the thread. Isn't it logical to assume the four votes came from the four posters? I guess not...:confused:

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Always so negative.... Lets see what happens.... I didn't support Arnold, but I would like to see what he does. Its time to start supporting him (untill he give "you" a reason not to"..

Then I'm sure you'll spark up some more debate threads.

How could you quote that post and completely overlook the message to see the negativity? I swear, you really do enjoy ragging on me. Too bad 95% of the time it is unmeritted... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by lex400sc
Just to prove a point. The recall system is inherently flawed. You can recall anyone anywhere in the state for no reason at all and spend up to a hundred million tax dollars doing so with the consent of only 12% of the voting population. I think the fact that that previous statement is true is absurd beyond belief. It totally undermines democracy. If Arnold reforms the Recall Clause of the state Constitution, I will give him much props, but I doubt it. :(

Originally posted by lex400sc
At the time I wrote that, there were four votes for yes, zero votes for no, and four posts on the thread. Isn't it logical to assume the four votes came from the four posters? I guess not...:confused:

We all know about assumptions. At least most of us do.

well, sounds like either Davis realized he's not wanted, or he has some sneaky plan up his sleeve. I'm impressed so far that even the usual suspects are being a bit mature about the whole thing.

Originally posted by RON430
We all know about assumptions. At least most of us do.

Yeah, Bush made a TON of them :rolleyes:

Originally posted by TNH
Yeah, Bush made a TON of them :rolleyes:
This is not in anyones' defense, but I believe you missed the point that RON430 was insinuating.
And we do not need to go down the same OLD path of Presidental bashing into the topic. The topic is about if the "Dems will cry election fraud in the California election." This is not about the Presidental election, It's about the California Governor Recall election, :rolleyes: So you must be refering to Davis! :D

Originally posted by EmeraldLexuSC3
So you must be refering to Davis! :D

If the word "Bush" means "Davis" to you, then you're absolutely right! :thumbdn:

Originally posted by lex400sc
If the word "Bush" means "Davis" to you, then you're absolutely right! :thumbdn:

Interesting how one's last name is construed into a word to equate a meaningless definition, to make one appear right. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by EmeraldLexuSC3
Interesting how one's last name is construed into a word to equate a meaningless definition, to make one appear right. :rolleyes:

What the hell are you talking about?http://www.intellexual.net/cl/twitch.gif http://www.intellexual.net/cl/thinking.gif

Originally posted by lex400sc
What the hell are you talking about?http://www.intellexual.net/cl/twitch.gif http://www.intellexual.net/cl/thinking.gif

Hes saying that your doing the things you always do when you spin a topic. You swapped names so it changes the point away from Gray Davis and put it on Bush, when the topic of this thread was based on Davis... Am I right EmeraldLexuSC?

Originally posted by lex400sc
What the hell are you talking about?http://www.intellexual.net/cl/twitch.gif http://www.intellexual.net/cl/thinking.gif

In simple terms; Davis does not define Bush and Bush is not a word! ;)

Originally posted by EmeraldLexuSC3
In simple terms; Davis does not define Bush and Bush is not a word! ;)

LOL... I gotcha:D

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Hes saying that your doing the things you always do when you spin a topic. You swapped names so it changes the point away from Gray Davis and put it on Bush, when the topic of this thread was based on Davis... Am I right EmeraldLexuSC?

Why do you speak for EmeraldLexusSC? The post was not directed to you. I think you just love to attack Lex400SC in some ways or just to piss him off. That is very immature.

Okay, let's rewind to the original words....

Originally posted by TNH
Yeah, Bush made a TON of them
Originally posted by EmeraldLexuSC3
So you must be refering to Davis! :D
Originally posted by lex400sc
If the word "Bush" means "Davis" to you, then you're absolutely right!

"Bush made a ton of them." "So you must be refering [sic] to Davis." " If the word "Bush" means "Davis" to you, then you're absolutely right."

So by this logic, if the word Bush doesn't mean Davis to you, then you are wrong: he isn't referring to Davis, because he specifically wrote Bush.

Get it????

Originally posted by EmeraldLexuSC3
Bush is not a word! ;)

PS: Bush is too a word. Would you like to be taught its meaning? Look...
From Encarta:

bush [ bÇÉsh ]

noun (plural bush¡Pes)

1. woody branched plant: a woody plant that is smaller than a tree and has many branches growing up from the lower part of the main stem

2. thicket: a thick clump of bushes

3. uncultivated and unsettled land: wild, uncultivated, and sparsely populated areas of land covered with natural vegetation, especially in Africa and Australia
living in the bush

4. dense mass: a dense large mass of something, especially hair or beard
a great bush of black hair

5. Canada See woodlot

6. bushy tail: a bushy tail, especially of a fox

7. vintner¡¦s sign: a bunch of ivy hung outside a tavern to show that wine is sold inside ( archaic )

8. tavern: a tavern ( archaic )