Franken Dealt A Blow

[Caligirl]

As for election fraud, congratulations to the liberals, they won that title hands down after the spectacles which took place this election season.

How many votes cast on election day were fraudulent?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How many votes cast on election day were fraudulent?

In the case of Franken possible 5 or 6 hundred with more to appear as needed during the recount.

 

[frazzledgear]

Of course. If it's between counting the votes and not counting the votes, the GOP always go with NOT counting the votes.

Have fun in the all Democratic Senate Norm.

I heard the Minnesota secretary of state -who is a Democrat and appointed the members of the election board who decided this issue -discussing this on TV. The ballots in question were NOT thrown out because election workers somehow made "administrative" mistakes -that isn't what that means although whoever wrote that article certainly intended to imply otherwise. They were thrown out because the people who cast those ballots made the mistakes -they made administrative and technical errors when filling out the verification envelope used to determine whether it is a legitimately cast absentee ballot. The law REQUIRES they remain unopened and uncounted. The instructions with absentee ballots spell out EXACTLY what must be filled out and specifically says their votes will not be counted if not done properly. All of it involving the necessary information to determine if that ballot has come from a registered voter and is a valid ballot or not. Another reminder to double check the required information has been provided is printed on the back of the envelope as the last thing the voter sees before sealing his envelope. It doesn't matter what kind of ballot you cast -if you fail to follow what are actually very simple instructions about how to properly cast it, election law in all states REQUIRES that it not be counted. Too bad and get over it.

The specific rules about what determines any type of ballot to be rejected and uncounted is set by the state legislature. It is not left to the individual judgment of election workers. It is a very specific part of every state's election law. Democrats just can't get over the fact that election law isn't just thrown out the window in order to help their candidate out when an election is close. But in fact, it is a violation of both state and federal election law to change ANY part of election law 30 days before allowing a voter to cast any kind of ballot and until after all election results have been certified and the results of that election made official. And that includes what determines an invalid ballot. Which is why the election board refused to allow those rejected ballots to be tossed into the mix now. The ballots in question were correctly rejected in accordance with MN election law the first time around and that cannot be changed now. Election law can only be changed after this election has been certified with an official winner -not DURING it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have the minimal intelligence needed to understand why federal and state election laws forbid changing any part of election law AFTER allowing voters to cast ballots and until after election results have been certified and official. Its like agreeing to play poker with one set of rules, but once you have been dealt your cards insisting you get to change the rules because it would give you a much better hand and increase your odds of winning the hand. Think your poker buddies are likely to go along with that -or far more likely to become real unfriendly real fast?

Once ballots are rejected in accordance with election law, they stay rejected -in my state, your state and in Minnesota. Florida had an unintended loophole that allowed Gore to go trolling among rejected ballots for additional votes -a loophole that Florida IMMEDIATELY closed to make sure it never happened again. All candidates KNOW the rules before any ballots are cast. So I'll let you in on something that is no big secret here. Whoever is demanding the rules be changed after the fact -is doing so ONLY to try and better his own hand and for NO other reason. It really isn't about counting "all" the votes for him -its about trying to improve his odds only.

The only person who demands the rules be changed after the fact in an election - is ALWAYS the guy who lost the original count. ALWAYS. Without exception. And not so oddly enough, the only people I've ever seen demand that election law be changed during the middle of an election and counting process -are Democrats.

For people like you to turn around and WHINE that Republicans don't want ballots counted is just stupid. Democrats only start their PHONY whine about the "need" to count rejected and spoiled ballots -when their guy wasn't able to win the original count. Recounts only result in a different outcome less than 1% of the time, so they know their only hope of a different outcome is by changing the rules. But it is never a Republican who turns around and demands that election law be changed after the fact. That is strictly a Democrat thing.

And where is your evidence that these reject ballots were primarily for FRANKEN anyway? None of them have been opened so their votes aren't known at all. They come from all over the state and not disproportionately from just a couple of heavily Democrat counties. Apparently you really didn't know this -but no Republican can win an election either unless ballots are all counted. Republicans just don't believe in changing the rules after the fact, especially since the ONLY time there is any demand to do so -is when a Democrat thinks violating election law will benefit HIM. You be sure and let me know when a Democrat who won the first count in an election by a very narrow margin -suddenly demands that election law be changed and that rejected and spoiled ballots must be counted -whether from registered voters or not. ROFLMAO It never happens unless the Democrat lost that first count and is looking at his last ditch means of any possible chance of changing the outcome -by changing the rules after the fact.

I'm pretty sure you would suddenly understand why we don't allow changing election law during the middle of counting ballots -if it had been Franken who won the original count. But if that had happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion because Coleman is a Republican. Which means he wouldn't have demanded the rules be changed after the fact in the first place.

 

[Lycurgus]

How many votes cast on election day were fraudulent?

Well Cali, that is the question, isn't it? Given the process in many states, who knows.

 

[NOBama]

Or throwing candidates completely off the ballots because of the same "technicalities"…

Reminds me of a story about a Chicago community organizer turned politician who wrote a popular speech and used it to hoodwink more than half the populace.

 

[Lycurgus]

Reminds me of a story about a Chicago community organizer turned politician who wrote a popular speech and used it to hoodwink more than half the populace.

LOL ....... ahuh ........ old habits in Chicago die hard. Joe Kennedy set the current day standard there and they continue to honor it. The sad thing is, they have infected the other cities and states as well.

 

[editec]

LOL ....... ahuh ........ old habits in Chicago die hard. Joe Kennedy set the current day standard there and they continue to honor it. The sad thing is, they have infected the other cities and states as well.

Joe Kennedy was a Boston Pol.

 

[Annie]

Joe Kennedy was a Boston Pol.

I think he was referring to the Kennedy/Nixon campaign and those very late votes out of Chicago.

washingtonpost.com: Another Race To the Finish

 

[Lycurgus]

Joe Kennedy had his fingers in a lot of things from coast to coast and abroad. But yes, in this reference I was speaking of the JFK / Nixon race. IMO, Joe Kennedy killed his two sons, but, that is certainly a different topic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Joe Kennedy had his fingers in a lot of things from coast to coast and abroad. But yes, in this reference I was speaking of the JFK / Nixon race. IMO, Joe Kennedy killed his two sons, but, that is certainly a different topic.

 

[Caligirl]

Well Cali, that is the question, isn't it? Given the process in many states, who knows.

So what do you base your previous claim on, where you say that dems were the fraudulent ones?

Is it possible that there are crooks on both sides?

looking forward to your thoughts,

 

[frazzledgear]

So what do you base your previous claim on, where you say that dems were the fraudulent ones?

Is it possible that there are crooks on both sides?

looking forward to your thoughts,

1. The three most corrupt political machines in the country exist in Chicago, New Jersey and Louisiana. All of them Democrat machines.

2. Which party insists it isn't very important to maintain the greatest confidence of clean elections -and that we should just go ahead and let anyone who shows up on election day -go ahead and vote. Even if they can't prove they live in that precinct -much less actually prove they are even a US citizen. And count it of course. Which party most nearly lives by the creed of "Vote and vote often"?

3. Which party thinks a substantial part of their constituency must exist behind prison bars and demands states change their laws that forbid current prisoners and ex-felons from voting? Which party desires this in the belief it is their party that would most benefit from it - in spite of the fact it has been upheld time and again in courts across the nation against repeated challenges to such laws? Which party is so convinced their party would most benefit by overturning such laws, that they still challenge these laws - in spite of the fact the overwhelming majority of people in all 48 states with such laws totally oppose changing them? Courts all across the country, including the Supreme Court - have upheld such bans and the overwhelming majority of people oppose reversing it. But one party is utterly convinced they are losing out on elections that they would win. If only those guilty of the most serious crimes in the country and THE most likely to commit further serious crimes against society and end up back in prison -could vote for them.

4. Which party insists that only their own voters are so stupid and incompetent that they should be allowed a free pass on following simple instructions -whether to register or to cast a ballot -and election workers should ignore their own state election laws that were intended to reduce the likelihood of fraudulent voting in the first place -and count those votes anyway?

5. Which party has more dead people casting votes for their candidate than any other party? Which party is THE most likely to have the winning candidate in races where the voter turnout in some counties exceeds the entire population of that county -including children and dogs -than any other party?

6. Which party, if their candidate fails to win the original count in an election and has lost by just a narrow margin -is most likely to insist the rules be changed in the middle of the counting process and all relevant election law just thrown out the window -all in the hopes it changes the outcome in the recount and will allow their candidate to steal the election he couldn't win - since they are more than 99% unlikely to win a legitimate recount unless something is changed between the first count and recount?

Are there individuals in each party guilty of illegal or fraudulent activity when it comes to elections? Sure -without a doubt. But only one party officially embraces it.

 

[Detmurds]

Al Franken is a jerk-off

 

[Gunny]

Al Franken is a jerk-off

Is that worse than an idiot? Post #14.

 

[Lycurgus]

So what do you base your previous claim on, where you say that dems were the fraudulent ones?

Is it possible that there are crooks on both sides?

looking forward to your thoughts,

Yes Cali, I do think it takes part on both sides to some degree. However, this past election season, really took the cake and very little was done to conceal it and they were very arrogant about it. And yes, in this I am speaking about the democrats. Now, if you like I can pull up news articles and court cases, but, it was so widely reported, that really shouldn't be needed.

Cali, I am a economical conservative, a social libertarian and a ecological liberal. My entire life until this election I always voted for the person and not the party. I always voted on the issue and not a party line. Hence, my vote have always crossed party lines, though honestly the majority do go to conservatives. But what transpired in the terms of voting, media bias and personal attacks sickened me and any democrat whom I might have voted for, lost my vote. And I'm not so sure I will get over this anytime soon. I look at facts, not party propaganda and the facts this past election really sheds poor light on the DNC.

That is how I feel about it.

 

[frazzledgear]

Yes Cali, I do think it takes part on both sides to some degree. However, this past election season, really took the cake and very little was done to conceal it and they were very arrogant about it. And yes, in this I am speaking about the democrats. Now, if you like I can pull up news articles and court cases, but, it was so widely reported, that really shouldn't be needed.

Cali, I am a economical conservative, a social libertarian and a ecological liberal......

I agree this election season the glaring arrogance and the blatant openness of it - and the nauseatingly biased media serving as Democrats' lapdog and deliberately just ignoring it all - was just appalling. It is equally appalling that so many people seem to applaud and support it all - apparently in the belief that the ends justify the means. The very same people you know would be screaming their heads off ONLY if it had been Republicans doing this. No problem if their own side does it though -just no big deal. Business as usual.

There is constantly a double standard in play here -and it goes back for decades and probably much longer. The very fact Democrats constantly employ a double standard and insist it depends on whether the person has a D or an R after his name before they can "know" if the behavior or activity is wrong - speaks volumes about the underlying lack of character and morality here. It is the very core of corruption that exists in the Democrat Party itself. This isn't about whether some individuals in both parties may engage in unethical and illegal behavior. Wrongdoing by an individual isn't owned by just one party. How it is handled by the rest of them matters. And only one party consistently wallows in it and embraces it.

I have scores of examples -whether it involves Congressmen having consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex with congressional aides of the very same legal age of consent, Presidents who commit documented felonies while in office (one to make an investigation go away and the other to get a lawsuit fraudulently settled in his favor), Congressmen accused of taking kickbacks, bribery, fraud -you name it. Large or small, no matter what the unethical or illegal behavior in question - the double standard of Democrats always comes out. Democrats reserve their "outrage" for when a Republican is caught doing something wrong. If a Democrat has committed the identical act and level of crime -they elevate him to standard bearer in the party. Republicans are the first to demand the resignation of a Republican caught in wrongdoing -and insist that person does not represent the ideals of the Republican party. But embracing, justifying, excusing and rationalizing why if a Democrat committed the identical act, it is just no big deal and should be overlooked and ignored -can only mean that person really does represent what the party is all about. A party unwilling to kick their own filth to curb and keep their own house as clean as possible -is not a party I want in power. Period.

Just one example of dozens: how did Democrats treat Congressman William Jefferson after $90,000 in bribe money was found stashed in his freezer? The opening of the next session of Congress - when Jefferson walked in, House Democrats all stood and gave him a STANDING OVATION! Who, with any sense of morality and decency - does that? Gee, would they have done that for a Republican caught red-handed with the money he took in bribes stashed in HIS freezer?

Republicans sure wouldn't have done that if one of their own had been caught with thousands in bribes stuffed in his deep freezer -and they wouldn't need to know whether a D or R was after his name before figuring that out either. A Republican caught committing crimes in office is treated like the embarrassment to the Republican party he is. A Democrat caught doing so is treated as a party hero.

One can only ignore so many glaring examples of the nonstop double standard before the realization that this party is absolutely THE most reluctant to kick their own filth to the curb and what that really means about the core of the Democrat party itself - sinks in.

 

[Xenophon]

Harry Reid already said that 'the senate' will decide that race, which means Franken will be appointed even if he losses the recount.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Harry Reid already said that 'the senate' will decide that race, which means Franken will be appointed even if he losses the recount.

The Congress decides who to seat. So even if Franken loses the Senate could in fact decide to seat Franken, the House did it once, I believe in the 80's. A Republican won but a recount was required. The Republican won the recount but the House disagreed and sent their OWN investigative team and at first refused to seat the Republican then agreed to seat them both till the end of their investigation.

 

[DiveCon]

The Congress decides who to seat. So even if Franken loses the Senate could in fact decide to seat Franken, the House did it once, I believe in the 80's. A Republican won but a recount was required. The Republican won the recount but the House disagreed and sent their OWN investigative team and at first refused to seat the Republican then agreed to seat them both till the end of their investigation.

what a sham

 

[Truthmatters]

Al Franken graduated cum laude in 1973 with a bachelor of arts degree from Harvard.

The recount was a automatic recount under the states laws.