MN vote complete with Franken up 225 votes

[Walguy]

It's cheating when it's in the Liberal state of MN but it's fair when it's in the red state of FL. I see said the blind man...

*sigh*
The Constitution of the United States of America states that state legislatures must set the rules for how presidential elections are conducted in their states. The original election results showed Bush beating Gore in FL by 500+ votes. The legally authorized recounts were conducted. Bush was still ahead. Because Democrats cannot accept losses in close elections they continued recounting, trying to get a result where Gore was ahead. They pranced about sanctimoniously about how 'every vote should count' to justify this. Lest we forget, this was after they had used every technicality in the book to get as many overseas absentee ballots as possible disallowed, because most of them were coming from servicemen, who voted heavily for Bush. Democrats really only wany every vote cast FOR THEM to count. They have no qualms at all about throwing away the other votes and disenfranchising non-Democratic voters. Anyway, when they still couldn't get a result where Gore was ahead, the liberal dominated Supreme Court of Florida ruled that additional recounts could continue in spite of the fact that this violated state election law passed by the legislature, and thus also violated the US Constitution. The Republicans said enough was enough, and went to the SCOTUS, which correctly ruled that the election laws as they existed on election day had to be followed, and the courts could not arbitrarily change them. (The four liberals on the Court, of course, put politics above law and Constitution, and dissented.) This ended the illegal extended recounts and made Bush the winner in FL, and as a result, POTUS.

Months later, it must be remembered, members of the media did their own additional recounts, of the kind the Dems wanted to continue doing. Since they did these recounts honestly, unlike Dems would have, the counts still showed Bush ahead.

So let us review. According to the US CONSTITUTION and FLORIDA LAW, Bush won the election in Florida, both the original vote and the legally authorized recounts. The Democrats wanted to keep counting until they got a result where Gore won the election, regardless of what they had to do. In other words, the Dems, as is their habit, were attempting to STEAL A CLOSE ELECTION, exactly as they are attempting to do now in MN. The SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution had to be followed instead of the whims of liberal judges, enforcing the LEGALLY DETERMINED RESULT OF THE ELECTION.

Thus we see that the 2000 election was not stolen. It was won by the man who captured the most electoral votes according to the Constitutionally prescribed method of electing our Presidents. The Democrats ATTEMPTED to overturn this legitimate result and STEAL the election. On this occasion they were prevented from doing so. Whether they will be allowed to do so in MN still remains to be seen.

LeBuick, when you make statements like you did, accusing Republicans of the very thing your own people tried to do then and are doing now, you are being a blatant liar. You know the truth, yet you ignore it solely because of political considerations. You should be ashamed of yourself, and pray to our Lord for forgiveness, and for help to overcome your dishonesty.

 

[EdSutton]

It's cheating when it's in the Liberal state of MN but it's fair when it's in the red state of FL. I see said the blind man...

As opposed to simply resorting to "jingo-ism", I believe if you check, you will find that every recount done "after-the-fact" and done by opponents of President George W. Bush, still showed a margin of victory for President Bush, with the "official" "certified" margin of 537 votes more or less sustained, although in the closest of these 'recounts' over these so-called 'disputable votes', I believe the margin dropped to 124 votes, if I recall. (In another the final margin was actually around 700, again, if I recall.) I think that state recount, finally showed about 300 votes, as some allegedly, previously uncounted ballots mysteriously turned up in (Would you believe it, the Democratic stronghold of Palm Beach County, where about 90% of the problems were actually happening, to begine with?) one county with about 200 ballots for President Bush, and about 450 for Vice-President Gore.

The point is, there has never been anything like any remotely credible recount, well-intended, or otherwise, that would have given that election, in FL, to Vice-President Gore, and while I am no great big fan of President George W. Bush, then or now, I frankly tire from hearing this "talking point" repeated, without any substance.

The second point is, these 'recounts' were not done by any friends of President Bush, by a long shot, and in some cases were done by those desperately determined to completely undermine the vote, and it simply never happened.

I also have yet to hear the first person decrying the elimination of those giant behemoth mechanical voting machines (which often weighed over a ton), which were shown to be, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, still the most accurate, tamper-proof, and fool-proof voting machine that has ever been devised.

Why do we not have an updated version of said machine for our votes, these days?? I think it to be unconscionable that we ues the least reliable systems, with error rates, even when clearly untampered, in any manner, of up to 6.5%, and toss out the best system we ever had, with an 'unforced error" rate of far less. Maybe they were simply "too tamper-proof" to suit some, ya' think??

I'll also add, that surely today, there are ways to make a mechanical machine much lighter, than one weighing a ton, with even better accuracy, than that that existed 50-60 years ago, as well.

Ed

 

[carpro]

You're wasting your time, Ed.

In Franken's case democrats have progressed from "count every vote", but only from the right precincts, to count votes twice whenever you can.

It's an outright steal.

Even one of the state supreme court judges serving on the canvassing board stated clearly that there was no doubt some votes were counted twice.

The court refused to force a correction of the problem.

The fix is in.

 

[rbell]

Morally...how many of us would be eligible to run under that standard? :tear:

I'm not saying he's unqualified because of his morality....I'm saying people have no business voting for such a lowlife.

 

[rbell]

It's cheating when it's in the Liberal state of MN but it's fair when it's in the red state of FL. I see said the blind man...

Perhaps you should look at specifics before offering such an opinion. You might find out these are two different situations.

Then again, you might not.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Morally...how many of us would be eligible to run under that standard?

Quite a few. Basic morality is not that hard to come by.

No one is asking for perfection. But Franken takes public perversity to new levels.

This recount is a fraud so far. One can only hope that someone steps in to take charge and make sure the recount is fair.

I still think we need a better voting system, including regulations that votes must be clearly marked according to the standards. Any ballot that is not clearly marked is discounted. No judging "voter intent" based on unclear marking.

 

[grace56]

You guys are right the pornagrapher has stollen the election (so far). HEy if a guy writes porn for Playboy he qualifies as a pornagrapher don't you think?

The dems have found ballets in the trunk of a car for Franken, they have counted some twice. There are service peoples absentee ballets that have not been counted thus far.

I vote in this state and it couldn't be easier, we have simple ballets that are counted by opitcal scanners.

My question to all those so called Chritians that voted for Obama and Franken, how could you vote for someone that approves of Abortion??????????

grace56

 

[KenH]

Chritians that voted for Obama

Abortion is one of several issues that I use in deciding who to vote for. I also consider other issues such as national security, foreign policy, economic issues, conservation issues, health care, infrastructure, etc.

I understand that some of my fellow Christians, particularly conservative Christians, have the abortion issue trump all other issues in their voting decision. I don't do that, but I have no problem with those who do.

 

[grace56]

Hey without LIFE there is no other issue to worry about! Right? So yes after you vote right on this one we can debate the rest.

Grace56

 

[LeBuick]

*sigh*
The Constitution of the United States of America states that state legislatures must set the rules for how presidential elections are conducted in their states. The original election results showed Bush beating Gore in FL by 500+ votes. The legally authorized recounts were conducted. .

So how is that different from MN. The election ended and a legally authorized recount was conducted and Colman lost. However, like I said, it seems to be ok for Colman to go to court but it was wrong for Gore to do the same.

Now this is my personal opinion, a clearly punched ballot with a hanging chad should be counted and not discarded. I believe it shows clear voter intent. Please keep in mind I voted for Bush in that election cuz I think Gore is a dweeb but fair is fair.

 

[LeBuick]

As opposed to simply resorting to "jingo-ism", I believe if you check, you will find that every recount done "after-the-fact" and done by opponents of President George W. Bush, still showed a margin of victory for President Bush, with the "official" "certified" margin of 537 votes more or less sustained,

Ed

I'm not calling you wrong Ed but the only votes I questioned were the ones not counted because the chad was still attached. My understanding is there were thousands of these ballots not counted in mostly democratic areas including Miami. Again, could be wrong but I recall that was the case.

I know there was a recount but the ballots with the hanging chads were still not counted. That is no different that Colman trying to get the absentee ballots from predominately conservative areas included in the MN count. In both cases it's about counting ballots that were excluded as not valid so I don't really see a difference.

So I stand by my statement, when Gore tried to get the hanging chad ballots counted it was wrong but Coleman is trying to get absentee ballots counted and it's right???

 

[LeBuick]

You're wasting your time, Ed.

In Franken's case democrats have progressed from "count every vote", but only from the right precincts, to count votes twice whenever you can.

You would have a good case if that was what Coleman is trying to do. The facts are he is only trying to count more votes in conservative areas. Franken is not the one blocking the counting of these other votes, it is the election officials. You are blaming the wrong person.

Even one of the state supreme court judges serving on the canvassing board stated clearly that there was no doubt some votes were counted twice.

The court refused to force a correction of the problem.

The fix is in.

From my understanding Colman has only made allegation of votes counted twice but has presented no proof. This is similar to Obama birth certificate, you can allege what you want but that doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean you have a court case. I am sure if Colman can prove votes were counted twice then the election board will fix the numbers.

Having said that, he believe 133 votes were counted twice but he lost by 225. Even if you take away the 133 votes he still lost.

 

[LeBuick]

You guys are right the pornagrapher has stollen the election (so far). HEy if a guy writes porn for Playboy he qualifies as a pornagrapher don't you think?

The dems have found ballets in the trunk of a car for Franken, they have counted some twice. There are service peoples absentee ballets that have not been counted thus far.

I vote in this state and it couldn't be easier, we have simple ballets that are counted by opitcal scanners.

My question to all those so called Chritians that voted for Obama and Franken, how could you vote for someone that approves of Abortion??????????

grace56

Since you are from MN then I know you are aware the disputed ballots are ones that were rejected by the optical scanners. Here is a link to some of the rejected ballots, you can easily see what the scanners didn't count them bu I have no problem with including them in the counts. The problem I see is each candidate only wants the ones from their friendly districts counted. I think your supreme court failed because the should have said count every vote in every precinct that shows clear intent. Instead they said let the two candidate decide which will count. That was a recipe for a disaster...

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/

 

[KenH]

Even if you take away the 133 votes he still lost.

Yep. You are correct. I am not a fan of Franken by any means but he won the election within the rules of the state of Minnesota.

 

[LeBuick]

Yep. You are correct. I am not a fan of Franken by any means but he won the election within the rules of the state of Minnesota.

Me either, I have no dog in that fight but fair is fair...

 

[Walguy]

So how is that different from MN. The election ended and a legally authorized recount was conducted and Colman lost. However, like I said, it seems to be ok for Colman to go to court but it was wrong for Gore to do the same.

The difference is that they weren't able to manufacture enough extra votes in FL during the legal recounts, so they kept changing the rules to try to gain more time to 'find' more votes. They learned their lesson apparently, since in MN they made sure to manufacture enough fraudulent new votes in the first recount wave, so they couldn't be stopped by the courts. The problem is that to do that they had to be much more blatant in their fraud, for instance a trunkload of additional ballots being found that all just happened to be votes for Franken. Even if this stands up, everyone in the world will know that this election was stolen, and Franken's service in the Senate will be permanently tainted.

Now this is my personal opinion, a clearly punched ballot with a hanging chad should be counted and not discarded. I believe it shows clear voter intent. Please keep in mind I voted for Bush in that election cuz I think Gore is a dweeb but fair is fair.

"AFTER VOTING, CHECK YOUR BALLOT CARD TO BE SURE YOUR VOTING SELECTIONS ARE CLEARLY AND CLEANLY PUNCHED AND THERE ARE NO CHIPS LEFT HANGING ON THE BACK OF THE CARD."

-notice that was posted in large print at every voting station in Florida where punch cards were used.

There was no excuse for people NOT doing their ballots correctly. The intstructions were clear and prominently posted. If some people didn't care enough about their votes to make sure their ballots conformed to the rules, in MY personal opinion their votes shouldn't have counted.
But much more importantly, the Dems didn't stop with hanging chads. Before they were finally stopped they were counting so-called 'pregnant chads' and even 'dimpled chads' as votes for Al Gore. I remember one photograph taken at a recount site where one of the workers was literally holding a ballot up to the light trying to figure out if the chad by Al Gore's name was dented or scratched in some way. This went FAR beyond discerning the intent of the voter. It is a standard that is way too subjective for an election to be decided by. But the Dems, of course, didn't mind the unfairness at all. Whatever it took to win, no matter how biased and dishonest. I will always believe that if they hadn't been stopped, they would have eventually 'found' enough extra votes to make Gore the winner.

"Our democratic process calls for a vote on election day. It does not call for us to continue voting until someone likes the outcome."
- 2000 George W. Bush campaign chairman Don Evans.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
-Josef Stalin

 

[LeBuick]

The difference is that they weren't able to manufacture enough extra votes in FL during the legal recounts, so they kept changing the rules to try to gain more time to 'find' more votes. They learned their lesson apparently, since in MN they made sure to manufacture enough fraudulent new votes in the first recount wave, so they couldn't be stopped by the courts.

How can you write this after what you said to me? You know this is an outright lie yet you are telling it sincerely like you think it's true. I am going to let you see what you said to me. I think you can use a dose of your own medicine. Manufacture enough votes... Come on man.

LeBuick, when you make statements like you did, accusing Republicans of the very thing your own people tried to do then and are doing now, you are being a blatant liar. You know the truth, yet you ignore it solely because of political considerations. You should be ashamed of yourself, and pray to our Lord for forgiveness, and for help to overcome your dishonesty.

There was no excuse for people NOT doing their ballots correctly. The intstructions were clear and prominently posted. If some people didn't care enough about their votes to make sure their ballots conformed to the rules, in MY personal opinion their votes shouldn't have counted..

At this link there is a button to the right that says next ballot. Please take the time and look through some of the rejected balots. http://senaterecount.startribune.com/

If you say there is no excuse for the people in FL to submit a defective ballot then the same applies in MN. Some were rejected for as little as coloring outside the line. However, the instructions say make sure not to make stray marks outside the lines. This is obviously for the optical scanners.

Now you tell me, how do you make such a distinction between a hanging chad and straying outside the lines. Both were against the instructions and both show clear intent. I can see how the electronic counter can reject the hanging chad but when an election official manually looks at the ballot they can tell very clearly who the person was voting for. It is exactly the same in MN, ht optical scanner might reject a ballot for a stray mark but when the election officials manually look at these ballots there is clear intent.

 

[LeBuick]

So let us review. According to the US CONSTITUTION and FLORIDA LAW, Bush won the election in Florida, both the original vote and the legally authorized recounts. The Democrats wanted to keep counting until they got a result where Gore won the election, regardless of what they had to do. In other words, the Dems, as is their habit, were attempting to STEAL A CLOSE ELECTION, exactly as they are attempting to do now in MN. The SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution had to be followed instead of the whims of liberal judges, enforcing the LEGALLY DETERMINED RESULT OF THE ELECTION..

Just curious, they can only keep counting if there are more ballots to count. So you're saying once Bush won in 2000 we should stop counting however, now that Franken has legally won you now want to continue counting. Which is it, do we stop counting or should we continue counting?

Yes, the SCOTUS stopped the counting in FL and I hope they do the same in MN. Otherwise why have election officials? Why not just let the courts decide the elections? That is what it will mean if they decide to count more ballots ONLY from conservative friendly areas.

Now what I think is fair and I believe you will agree, let's count all the ballots that show clear intent from every precincts. I think the same rule should have been used in 2000. Count every vote that shows clear intent and a hanging chad clearly shows voter intent.

 

[Walguy]

How can you write this after what you said to me? You know this is an outright lie yet you are telling it sincerely like you think it's true. I am going to let you see what you said to me. I think you can use a dose of your own medicine. Manufacture enough votes... Come on man.

I stand by my statement. The Dems have stolen enough other elections that it is completely fair to assume that when a Dem loses a close election and any kind of recount or ballot 'discovery' happens in Dem controlled areas that results in extra votes for the Dem, there is corruption going on. The fact that you don't want to see it doesn't change the truth.

And in the MN case I once again refer you to the mysterious discoveries of large numbers of ballots that all happened to be votes for Franken, and the fact that every time there was any kind of 'correction' in the numbers in any count, it was in favor of Franken. And YOU are saying 'Come on man' to ME?? Good grief.

 

[Walguy]

Just curious, they can only keep counting if there are more ballots to count. So you're saying once Bush won in 2000 we should stop counting however, now that Franken has legally won you now want to continue counting. Which is it, do we stop counting or should we continue counting?

Yes, the SCOTUS stopped the counting in FL and I hope they do the same in MN. Otherwise why have election officials? Why not just let the courts decide the elections? That is what it will mean if they decide to count more ballots ONLY from conservative friendly areas.

Now what I think is fair and I believe you will agree, let's count all the ballots that show clear intent from every precincts. I think the same rule should have been used in 2000. Count every vote that shows clear intent and a hanging chad clearly shows voter intent.

In FL they kept REcounting with lower standards each time. I really have no problem with hanging chads, although there was no excuse for there being any. It was when pregnant and dimpled chads started being counted that the whole thing turned into a farce.

Similarly, I have no problem if people in MN went a little outside the lines as long as their intent was clear. But when two areas are both marked and one is crossed out, or when it is marked ambiguously in any other way, there is no way to know what the voter meant. It's just a guess, and elections are too important to be decided by guessing. Such voters could have easily requested a new ballot, but they didn't, so their improperly marked ballots shouldn't count. Those ballots should have been discarded, instead of being interpreted as votes for Franken, as the Dems running the recount apparently did in just about every uncertain case.

Also, at this point in MN it's not about additional recounts because of a close result, it's about trying to overcome the clear fraud that resulted in the extra votes that changed the winner of the election. Surely you would agree that those two circumstances are different.