10
   

Fat Lady Sings At Last: Franken is Senator of Minnessota!

 
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 11:25 am
Childern, childern! Please refrain from the insults and name calling.
0 Replies
 
Yankee
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 11:27 am
@Setanta,
So, somehow you created "ARROGATE" from my initial statement which was....

"Your arrogance is duly noted"

OK. I can play too. I'll makeup this word as it applies to you.


asshole
One entry found.

Main Entry:
ass·hole Listen to the pronunciation of asshole
Pronunciation:
\ˈas-ˌ(h)ōl\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1usually vulgar : anus2 usually vulgar : a stupid, incompetent, or detestable person usually vulgar : the worst place "used in phrases like asshole of the world


Laughing You make my day!! Laughing

OK. Enough of you, back to the Races for me.



0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 11:42 am
The monkeys are having races now?

The fact remains that you and McWhitey presented opinion pieces, not facts, and that what were alleged to be facts in those opinion pieces are contradicted by the statement of the Minnesota Supreme Court. And, as i have said, i will take the word of the Minnesota Supreme Court over the whining of two conservatives writing opinion pieces.

What this boils down to is that the certification of the election results in Minnesota mean that another Democrat will be seated in the Senate. Conservatives are whining again because they hate Democrats and in particular, Franken is someone they love to hate. So they're whining. Nothing new in that.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 12:02 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:

It's always interesting to see how it's always articles on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal that end up as evidence for the truth of an alleged fact. Somehow the journal's reporting, which usually relies on careful research, never makes the cut. It's also interesting how conveniently the article ignores that the recount was automatic under Minnesota law, and that Franken won the recount.

Don't confuse McG with the facts. It just makes him angry.

Here's what the Minnesota Supreme Court said (emphasis mine):

Quote:
More than 2.9 million Minnesotans cast ballots in the November general election, including approximately 300,000 who voted or attempted to vote by absentee ballot. On November 18, 2008, the State Canvassing Board accepted the consolidated statewide canvassing report as showing that Coleman received 1,211,565 votes and that Franken received 1,211,359 votes for the office of United States Senator, a margin of 206 votes in Coleman‟s favor. Because the margin separating the two candidates was less than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes counted for that office, the State Canvassing Board directed the Minnesota Secretary of State‟s Office to oversee a manual recount, as required by Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(b)(1) (2008).

The statewide manual recount was conducted between November 19, 2008, and January 5, 2009, pursuant to instructions drafted by the Secretary of State‟s Office and approved by the State Canvassing Board after consultation with representatives of Coleman and Franken. During the recount, local election officials and the candidates reviewed the absentee ballot return envelopes that had been rejected on or before election day and agreed that some of them had been improperly rejected. See Coleman v. Ritchie, 758 N.W.2d 306, 308 (Minn. 2008). On January 3, 2009, the Secretary of State‟s Office opened and counted the 933 ballots identified during this process.1 On January 5, 2009, the State Canvassing Board certified the results of the election as 1,212,431 votes for Franken and 1,212,206 votes for Coleman, a margin of 225 votes in Franken‟s favor.

On January 6, 2009, appellants Coleman and Sheehan (hereinafter “Coleman”) filed a notice of election contest in Ramsey County District Court under Minn. Stat. § 209.021 (2008), contesting the election results certified by the State Canvassing Board and seeking a declaration that Coleman was entitled to the certificate of election as United States Senator. On January 12, 2009, under Minn. Stat. § 209.045 (2008), we appointed three judges to hear and determine the contest. Testimony in the trial commenced on January 26, 2009, and concluded on March 12, 2009. Coleman sought during trial to have additional absentee ballots counted. No claim of fraud in the election or during the recount was made by either party. At the conclusion of the trial, the court determined that 351 additional absentee ballot return envelopes satisfied the statutory requirements and ordered that these envelopes be opened and the ballots inside counted.

On April 13, 2009, the trial court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, finding that Franken received 1,212,629 votes and Coleman received 1,212,317 votes in the November 4, 2008 general election, a margin of 312 votes in Franken‟s favor. The court found that Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast in the election for United States Senator for the State of Minnesota and concluded that Franken was entitled to receive the certificate of election.

To sum up: the initial vote count had Coleman ahead by 206 votes. Because of the close margin, an automatic recount was ordered. After that manual recount, Franken jumped ahead by 225. Coleman objected, and the court agreed to count additional ballots. After those ballots were counted, Franken was even farther ahead than he was before (312 votes).

At that point, Coleman had pretty much run out of reasons to contest the vote count, since there were no allegations of fraud. He was left to argue that the state should have adhered to a "substantial compliance" test for absentee ballots rather than a "strict compliance" test -- in other words, if the ballots came close to the statutory requirements, the court should have counted them.

Oddly enough, that was pretty much Al Gore's position in the 2000 Florida recount. It is, therefore, passing strange that conservatives now want the Gore argument to prevail in Minnesota, given how unenthusiastic they were about that argument back in 2000. Oh well, I guess they've repented their past mistakes and admitted the error of their ways.

Unless Yankee or McGentrix plan on addressing the actual ruling by the court, this one is case closed. Some opinion article that is factually inaccurate vice the ruling of the court and the events that took place is the tombstone of their argument.

T
Keep digging boys.
O
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 12:14 pm
@Diest TKO,
Well, to go on a bit of a tangent, was OJ really innocent? The court found that he was based on the evidence and the work of the lawyers. Did that make the "case closed"?

Lets look back at Bush v. Gore. How long have the liberals whined and bitched about that? Hell, some people still whine about it today. The court made a ruling, does that make it "case closed"?

Simply because a court made a decision that is legally binding does not mean that fraud was not committed. It only means that the court did not find the evidence either compelling or conclusive.

Reading through the case in the link provided, I did not see a good reasoning for court to make some of it's decisions based on old precedent. I will continue to hold the opinion that Franken is a whiny bitch that shouldn't be a senator and I am sure you guys will continue to hold that opinion that he deserves the seat for no other reason then he is not a Republican. Great basis for being in the Senate and supporting someone with a poor political background.
Yankee
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 12:20 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Unless Yankee or McGentrix plan on addressing the actual ruling by the court, this one is case closed. Some opinion article that is factually inaccurate vice the ruling of the court and the events that took place is the tombstone of their argument.


No need for me to address the Minn SC ruling as I am indifferent to it.

The fact remains, as in every election ever held in the US, there is a certain level of acceptable fraud, just by the mere fact that human beings are involved.

If either candidate had the ability to win a clear majority of the votes, this would be a none issue.

You "liberals" can have the glory of this so called victory. I am sure the conservatives are also happy in a way, that by having someone like Al Franken sitting on the Democratic side only further my claim that he will be viewed as the Master Clown of the Herd we call the US Senate.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 12:45 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Well, to go on a bit of a tangent, was OJ really innocent? The court found that he was based on the evidence and the work of the lawyers. Did that make the "case closed"?

Would a discussion on opinions of th OJ case be a means to determine if he was innocent? No. The only discussion that matters would be one based on facts. In this case, the MANDATORY recount put Franken in the lead. The legal actions taken thereafter were initiated by the Coleman camp. That found Franken even more ahead.

Your opinion about Franken's lawyers using dirty tricks is noted, but irrelevant in the face that the numbers sided with Franken all along. Under what counting method would Coleman have won? I suspect, you will not be able to come up with a method. You are welcome to present it with numbers. Details. Be specific or don't bother.

McGentrix wrote:

Lets look back at Bush v. Gore. How long have the liberals whined and bitched about that? Hell, some people still whine about it today. The court made a ruling, does that make it "case closed"?

Actually, yes. It is a very closed case. In Gore's case, the numbers in FL didn't side with him by the method used in the state. The lesson to be learned is about how a state is transparent in their counting process. That lesson in FL has been applied in many states since 2000 both red and blue.

McGentrix wrote:

Simply because a court made a decision that is legally binding does not mean that fraud was not committed. It only means that the court did not find the evidence either compelling or conclusive.

In the case of the MN Senate race, the numbers are very conclusive. There is nothing to be compelled by. Franken simply won. This recount was always going to side with Franken. The only reason that it took this long is that the GOP funneled as much money as possible to delay him from getting to the Senate floor. The legal dirty tricks weren't committed by Franken's lawyers. Let's not forget that he had the disadvantage with a republican governor (who could have ended this after the Coleman's challenges were up, and a conservative MN supreme court.

McGentrix wrote:

Reading through the case in the link provided, I did not see a good reasoning for court to make some of it's decisions based on old precedent. I will continue to hold the opinion that Franken is a whiny bitch that shouldn't be a senator and I am sure you guys will continue to hold that opinion that he deserves the seat for no other reason then he is not a Republican. Great basis for being in the Senate and supporting someone with a poor political background.

Actually McGentrix, I think Franken deserves his victory because he had more votes.

Here.

http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50266954/Tissue_Box.jpg

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 12:47 pm
You're giving up your Depends?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 12:54 pm
@Yankee,
You only need win by a single vote. Franken had won the mandatory recount and the one ordered by Coleman. Why would he have to cheat?

Franken won.

You want to demonstrate how he did not. Bring some facts. Show what method would have put the Numbers in Coleman's favor and to a degree that you would not consider beyond the acceptable degree of fraud in Coleman's favor. Numbers dude. Numbers. You seem to think that had Franken won with a (yet to be defined) clear majority, this wouldn't be an issue. Show how Coleman could have achieved a great number of votes than Franken and define clearly what that margin would need to be.

I accept your concession on the matter in advance. Save yourself the embarrassment, dude.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Court rules Franken wins Senate Seat - Discussion by parados
baby, I'm amazed - Discussion by dyslexia
Franken is Challenging This Vote - Discussion by cjhsa
BREAKING NEWS: Al Franken is out. - Discussion by tsarstepan
Al Franken is my hero - Discussion by DrewDad
Al Franken thread - Discussion by edgarblythe
Funny Business in Minnesota - Discussion by Woiyo9
So I noticed Al Franken almost won - Question by Linkat
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 10:11:41