Coleman vs Franken

FTR, I am about as "anti-socialist" as one is likely to find. And I am considered as very conservative, as well. But one should consider that these two things are not necessarily synonymous, for one can be very "conservative" and yet very "socialistic" and both at the same time.

Don't overlook the forest because of the trees, here. By definition, "socialism" equals state control, hence a reactionary one-person all-powerful dictatorship is just as much a socialistic state as is a communist state with an all-powerful party.

Ed

 

If your supposition is correct, how did Franken outwit God?

 

You are attempting to rewrite history, or maybe you are simply dis-remembering.

The recount was completed. The recount of the recount was completed. The Secretary of State in Florida certified Bush the winner, according to the laws of the state of Florida in place at the time of the election.

The Florida Supreme court attempted to nullify the laws of the state of Florida concerning the election....after the election results had run the course of the laws in place at the time and had been certified in Bush's favor.

The SCOTUS ruling was not that Bush won, or that a recount or a recount of a recount couldn't continue...but that Florida had to abide by the laws in place at the time of the election.

That is fair by any standard.

And yes, national news agency went in a recounted the votes and found that Bush had in fact recieved the most votes. Since it didn't fit their democrat propaganda, they made little mention of the fact.

peace to youraying:

 

Ed you are obviously wanting to quibble. If you had read point #8 thoroughly you would have read: "States have the right to vote as they please as long as they do not deny an eligible voter the right."

You are also obviously quibbling when you say there are no Federal elections. There are elections for Federal officials: the president, the vice-president, senators, and representatives. Your statement: "There are currently 51 of these elections, which happen to be held on the same day, by Constitutional requirement." establishes this. I call these Federal elections. You can call them whatever you choose. We still do have some rights unless you offend obama then you may be investigated like Joe the plumber. Also the Ruling of the Supreme Court in the 2000 elections establishes that state election rules for Federal officials are subject to Federal requirements. States hold elections for state officials as they please.

Your last statement: "Personally, I hope to never see the day there is a "Federal Election" for by definition, that would mean that we would be electing a President of "America", and not choosing the one to become the President of the United States of America." is nonsensical. America and the United States are generally recognized as the same.

 

So...you object to Coleman objecting to how the ballots were counted...but you support Al "The Sky Is Falling" Gore in an identical reaction.

Oh, THAT'S consistent...

BTW...just because you repeat propaganda about the 2000 election...does not make it true.

 

You have totally misread the intent, here.

I do not wish to see the President and Vice President elected by any mass popular vote, but in accordance with the Constitution, as we have it, via the so-called "Electoral College", of the several states and DC.

You and I do not have (nor have we ever had) any "right" to vote "for" the President, as in a 'democracy' nor do I wish to see this ever come to pass. I do not ever wish to see any system, whereby some third, fourth, fifth, sixth or whatever 'minor' Party can effectively determine who should become the leader of the country, as happens in many countries of the World.

Personally, I find it extremely distasteful that, under that sort of scenario, for some examples, that Govs. Wallace & Thurmond, Rep. Anderson or Mr. Perot (twice) and Mr(s). Buchanan and Nader, among others, could have determined who should occupy the White House at various times, during my own lifetime, should we have been under some sort of "parliamentary" system of elections, even as to counting votes. That is not to say I necessarily have (or had) one thing against any of those I named above.

But I do have a strong aversion where one with less than 5% of the 'vote' and support might potentially get to be the 'kingmaker' for the highest office and honor afforded by our land.

Ed

 

I don't want to see the president elected by popular vote either. I am a strong believer in the Electoral College [and the Constitution]. That is the only thing keeping the big states from dominating the presidential elections.

 

You don't seem to respect the democratic process.

 

You mean democratic or democrat. The democrat [party] process is to steal elections. That is the way obama got elected to the Illinois senate and probably to the US senate.

 

Earth to LeBuick:

Basic Civics here, but you seem to be lacking...different states can have different voter regulations. And just to let you know...by every metric used, Bush won. Not that it will stop your bloviating...

 

I do respect the process.

I don't respect idiots that vote a foul-mouthed, lying, sick pervert into office.

 

It is most important to follow the laws in place at the time of the election.

Because you set a precident that governs election laws in the future. Every election now has "observers" (both republicans and democrats: usually attorneys) watching key states. It is no longer rare to file lawsuits in an attempt to get an advantage.

peace to youraying:

 

Fl law called for an automatic recount of all votes. That happened, and Bush won.

Gore requested a hand recount in counties with heavy democrat registration. He didn't ask for a recount of all the votes. He didn't ask for a hand recount in Republican areas. He only wanted a hand recount in areas with a large concentration of democrats, with democrats counting the ballots.

The laws are in place to stop voter fraud.

There were no uncounted votes. All qualified votes were counted at least twice.

peace to youraying:

 

Untrue. If you don't like the law, change it before the next election. Don't attempt to change the rules of the game after it has been played and you lost. That is unfair to the victor who played according to the rules.

The clear winner was declared, the democrats refused to accept the outcome...and still refuse to acknowledge the loss.

The people's voice was accurately heard. The losing side stuffed their fingers in their ears and tried to keep the game going after they had lost.

No, the election officals should be counting actual votes, not attempting to discern intent from a ballot that is not clearly marked.

peace to youraying: