Did voter fraud alter the outcome of the MN 2008 Senate race?

[daveman]

OK, so you have concluded that the Democrats in MN benefited from fraudulent votes cast that enabled them to win an election they should not have won...

Read it again. What you think I wrote is not, in fact, what I wrote.

...and yet, somewhere else,

you claim that you have never made the 'stolen election!' complaint.

What does the above describe, if it doesn't describe a stolen election, according to your own conclusion?

We'll never know if the election was stolen or not. Due to the amount of fraud proven, and the number of cases still pending, it may well have been.

But the Democrats here don't care. Their guy won. According to them, that's all that matters.

And you seem to be one of them. Gasp.

Was the election certified? Who certified it? Can it be decertified?

Coleman conceded. Can he un-concede?

Well, that's certainly one way to excuse voter fraud.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I must have missed where either of you condemned the voter fraud in the MN Senate race.

Care to point it out to me?

No?

Well, then.

How many people in this thread have objected to MN enforcing its voting laws regarding felons?

Dunno. If there've been any, they've been drowned out by the liberals saying their guy won, so get over it. Have you seen any?

So despite your having NO evidence that the liberals here in any meaningful number have any problem with MN prosecuting ineligible voters,

you contine to rant on about liberals having a problem with MN prosecuting ineligible voters.

That is a classic strawman. Which for USMB purposes given your history ought to be nicknamed a 'daveman'.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.” -- Dem Vote Fraud motto

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read it again. What you think I wrote is not, in fact, what I wrote.

We'll never know if the election was stolen or not. Due to the amount of fraud proven, and the number of cases still pending, it may well have been.

But the Democrats here don't care. Their guy won. According to them, that's all that matters.

And you seem to be one of them. Gasp.

Was the election certified? Who certified it? Can it be decertified?

Coleman conceded. Can he un-concede?

Well, that's certainly one way to excuse voter fraud.

Then take it up with Coleman. He's the one here with standing who apparently excused it.

 

[daveman]

I must have missed where you said that the will of the people wasn't honored and that Al Gore really won the election in 2000.

Care to point that out to me?

No?

Well then what you are saying is the Republican winning is all that matters to you.

So, in summary, Art thinks the Electoral College is WORSE than illegal voter fraud.

Well, "thinks" is perhaps the wrong word...

In summary, Daveman doesn't care if a half a million more people voted for the Democrat than the Republican so as long as the Republican wins.

Daveman hates democracy.

The Republican winning is all that matters to him.

Throughout this thread, I've said that I don't care who won the MN Senate race, I object to the fraud involved.

You idiot leftists claim you don't want people to be disenfranchised, but your statements in this thread prove otherwise.

You really don't give a damn that 113 legal MN voters were disenfranchised by 113 illegal voters.

Why?

Because the Democrat won.

Your childish attempt at equating voter fraud with the elector college is profoundly stupid.

 

[daveman]

[Read it again. What you think I wrote is not, in fact, what I wrote.
.

How many times do I have to read this:

"But your party benefited, so it's okay with you."


You're claiming the Democrats benefited from fraudulent voting. The only material benefit here would be winning the election.

Therefore you are claiming 'stolen election'.

Are you saying the Democrat candidate willing did not benefit the Democratic Party?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I must have missed where either of you condemned the voter fraud in the MN Senate race.

Care to point it out to me?

No?

Well, then.

We're all too busy trying to imagine daveman starting a thread about voter fraud in a case where the Republican won.

Not my problem you're unimaginative.

Instead of obsessing with ad hominem attacks on posters here,

why don't you tell us what the viable, workable remedy is here, and why aren't you directing your apparent wrath towards the Minnesota board of elections or whatever they call their governing body for elections up there?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, in summary, Art thinks the Electoral College is WORSE than illegal voter fraud.

Well, "thinks" is perhaps the wrong word...

In summary, Daveman doesn't care if a half a million more people voted for the Democrat than the Republican so as long as the Republican wins.

Daveman hates democracy.

The Republican winning is all that matters to him.

Throughout this thread, I've said that I don't care who won the MN Senate race, I object to the fraud involved.

You idiot leftists claim you don't want people to be disenfranchised, but your statements in this thread prove otherwise.

You really don't give a damn that 113 legal MN voters were disenfranchised by 113 illegal voters.

Why?

Because the Democrat won.

Your childish attempt at equating voter fraud with the elector college is profoundly stupid.

Peer Reviewed and 100% accurate

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Read it again. What you think I wrote is not, in fact, what I wrote.
.

How many times do I have to read this:

"But your party benefited, so it's okay with you."


You're claiming the Democrats benefited from fraudulent voting. The only material benefit here would be winning the election.

Therefore you are claiming 'stolen election'.

Are you saying the Democrat candidate willing did not benefit the Democratic Party?

No I'm calling you a liar for trying to claim that this thread is not a Stolen Election!!! piss and moan.

 

[daveman]

How many people in this thread have objected to MN enforcing its voting laws regarding felons?

Dunno. If there've been any, they've been drowned out by the liberals saying their guy won, so get over it. Have you seen any?

So despite your having NO evidence that the liberals here in any meaningful number have any problem with MN prosecuting ineligible voters,

you contine to rant on about liberals having a problem with MN prosecuting ineligible voters.

That is a classic strawman. Which for USMB purposes given your history ought to be nicknamed a 'daveman'.

"you contine to rant on about liberals having a problem with MN prosecuting ineligible voters."

Speaking of strawmen, that one's pretty weak.

I never made that claim. You're paying too much attention to the voices in your head.

 

[Article 15]

So, in summary, Art thinks the Electoral College is WORSE than illegal voter fraud.

Well, "thinks" is perhaps the wrong word...

In summary, Daveman doesn't care if a half a million more people voted for the Democrat than the Republican so as long as the Republican wins.

Daveman hates democracy.

The Republican winning is all that matters to him.

Throughout this thread, I've said that I don't care who won the MN Senate race, I object to the fraud involved.

You idiot leftists claim you don't want people to be disenfranchised, but your statements in this thread prove otherwise.

You really don't give a damn that 113 legal MN voters were disenfranchised by 113 illegal voters.

Why?

Because the Democrat won.

Your childish attempt at equating voter fraud with the elector college is profoundly stupid.

Throughout this thread you have continuously fabricated this notion that the Democrats hate Democracy and that winning is all that's important to them.

You've been exposed to be a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

You are free to black knight it for pages on end.

 

[daveman]

Was the election certified? Who certified it? Can it be decertified?

Coleman conceded. Can he un-concede?

Well, that's certainly one way to excuse voter fraud.

Then take it up with Coleman. He's the one here with standing who apparently excused it.

Yeah. How many people had been convicted for voter fraud when he conceded?

 

[daveman]

We're all too busy trying to imagine daveman starting a thread about voter fraud in a case where the Republican won.

Not my problem you're unimaginative.

Instead of obsessing with ad hominem attacks on posters here,

Tissue?

why don't you tell us what the viable, workable remedy is here, and why aren't you directing your apparent wrath towards the Minnesota board of elections or whatever they call their governing body for elections up there?

I don't think there is a remedy for this election. The Senate is probably not going to invalidate the election at this late date.

To prevent such widespread fraud in the future, the voter rolls need to be purged of illegal voters, new registrants must prove they are legal voters, and ID should be presented at the poll to prove the voter is the same person as the registrant.

 

[daveman]

How many times do I have to read this:

"But your party benefited, so it's okay with you."


You're claiming the Democrats benefited from fraudulent voting. The only material benefit here would be winning the election.

Therefore you are claiming 'stolen election'.

Are you saying the Democrat candidate willing did not benefit the Democratic Party?

No I'm calling you a liar for trying to claim that this thread is not a Stolen Election!!! piss and moan.

If Id actually said what you wrongly claim I'd said, I would indeed be a liar.

But you can't seem to make that claim without lying yourself. Gasp.

 

[daveman]

In summary, Daveman doesn't care if a half a million more people voted for the Democrat than the Republican so as long as the Republican wins.

Daveman hates democracy.

The Republican winning is all that matters to him.

Throughout this thread, I've said that I don't care who won the MN Senate race, I object to the fraud involved.

You idiot leftists claim you don't want people to be disenfranchised, but your statements in this thread prove otherwise.

You really don't give a damn that 113 legal MN voters were disenfranchised by 113 illegal voters.

Why?

Because the Democrat won.

Your childish attempt at equating voter fraud with the elector college is profoundly stupid.

Throughout this thread you have continuously fabricated this notion that the Democrats hate Democracy and that winning is all that's important to them.

You've been exposed to be a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

You are free to black knight it for pages on end.

Yep, there it is, folks.

Art thinks the Electoral College is worse than voter fraud.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, that's certainly one way to excuse voter fraud.

Then take it up with Coleman. He's the one here with standing who apparently excused it.

Yeah. How many people had been convicted for voter fraud when he conceded?

Was Coleman unaware of Minnesota's laws? Whose fault is that?

 

[daveman]

Then take it up with Coleman. He's the one here with standing who apparently excused it.

Yeah. How many people had been convicted for voter fraud when he conceded?

Was Coleman unaware of Minnesota's laws? Whose fault is that?

How big a hissy-fit does the left throw every time the right attempts to purge illegal voters from the rolls?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only if the Republican wins.

You want to disenfranchise voters in 48 states in all situations.

I'm told that's all that matters.

You were told that you're a moron, and a partisan hack.

 

[Uncensored2008]

daveman is so dim, you can probably troll him for 200 further posts.

Do you also want to disenfranchise the voters from 48 states?

Do you support a law that will only count California and New York for deciding the Presidency, they way A15 does?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah. How many people had been convicted for voter fraud when he conceded?

Was Coleman unaware of Minnesota's laws? Whose fault is that?

How big a hissy-fit does the left throw every time the right attempts to purge illegal voters from the rolls?

Is the point of this thread that partisans on the left and right have biases?

Are we supposed to cry out 'Eureka!' on this historic discovery that you seem to think you have made?