|
| Posted by: Boldwin
- [4010491810] Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 12:57
I can't even look it's so predictible. Franken leaning county with unsecured ballots, 'just happens to find 100 votes, all for Franken'.
What are the odds all 100 votes would be for Franken? From any county no matter how Franken leaning?
So arrogant they don't even bother to make the fraud look plausible. |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
SuperDude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 13:04
|
This was covered previously, as I recall. The phone-in numbers are often different from the actual numbers, and the fact that the number is exactly 100 off leads me (and many others) to believe this is not fraud at all.
If your bank account is off by $100 even, do you cry "Bank Fraud!" Baldwin? Seems more likely, but less sexy, explanations are at hand.
The story you link to, in fact, merely is anectdotal and offers no evidence at all of fraud. Merely a series of linked emails (no one of which has any direct connection to the district in question), some of them indicating this doesn't pass the smell test.
I see you have no comment about Missouri? How can the Dems get to 60 without it?
|
|
| | | 2 | Tree
ID: 51011420
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 14:57
|
this was discussed in another thread. i guess you feel so self-important, you had to start this one too.
if the situation were reversed, and a Republican were catching up to a Democrat, you would be lauding the process, and the law.
but because you're a partisan hack, with no sense of fairness or honesty, the fix must be in here.
and, as usual, you link to a story of dubious nature, with nothing really of substance.
but, as usual, you try so hard, and it's adorable.
|
|
| | | 3 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 15:01
|
I like how roles are reversed now, i do not know how many times i had to read through how Bush stole the election from Gore. It is really sad in both cases.
|
|
| | | 4 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 15:05
|
All the Dems who complained about the rigged election in Florida in 2000 had plenty to say then. I wasn't a Dem or Repub in 2000 and didn't vote for Gore but I can see a rat when I'm looking at it.
One would hope everyone who believes in an honest election is watching this carefully and assuming that there might be something funny going on if someone who is losing finds lots of lost votes.
I'm in Dubai so not following this closely but I can be just as cynical about Franken getting some help as I can about one Bush helping another.
I just hope everyone who cried about 2000 is watching this one just as open a mind that there may be fraud. Of course when has this forum been non partisan?
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 1810491813
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 15:25
|
#3/4: I never believed Bush stole the election through the counting of ballots. And I don't believe Tree did, or very many other people. I believe Bush short-circuited the process by asking SCOTUS to step into a state process while the state was trying to sort it out.
In fact, my position has been very consistent: Let the state count the ballots by whatever means they believe is fair.
So far, I've seen nothing to believe that there is anything unfair about what is going on right now in MN.
|
|
| | | 6 | Boldwin
ID: 4010491810
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 16:31
|
In many aspects the roles are not reversed. It's still Dems cherry picking only in heavily Dem precincts, not respecting the established recount process, and in both cases trying to steal an election for a Dem from a Republican who on the face of it, won the election outright.
In both cases tactics are being used by the Dems that would get a Republican laughed off the stage by the biased media.
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 1810491813
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 17:05
|
Minnesota has a mandated recount of the entire election. There's no cherry picking involved. Unless you are taking, out-of-context, the random post-election machine testing that MN also mandates after an election?
Right now they are finishing up absentee and provisional ballot counts. Then they'll start the recount. Never too early to claim a stolen election it seems, however.
|
|
| | | 8 | Boldwin
ID: 4010491810
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 17:10
|
The recount almost certainly will include the fraudulent ones they are already pulling out their collective wazzoo.
|
|
| | | 9 | sarge33rd
Donor
ID: 99331714
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 17:19
|
Your proof of "fraudulent ones being pulled out their colelctive wazoo..." is what precisely?
|
|
| | | 10 | tree on the treo
ID: 361053417
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 17:42
|
again. if the situation was reversed in minn, baldwin would be cheering the recount.
there isn't a more biased, partisan, and completely disrespectful of the laws of the land poster on this board baldwin. you are not at all interested in fairness or what is right, unless, of course, it is what is Right.
|
|
| | | 11 | Boldwin
ID: 4010491810
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 19:10
|
Read the link I originally provided. Any fair person will conclude Franken is getting the benefit of physically and statistically impossible quirks given the very impressive system in place in Minn. You gotta love the tripple results tapes and the requirements for 2 judges, the machines rejecting any unreadable ballot back to the voter for a redo. There is no way ballots are legitimately floating around turning up a week later and 100% Franken. No way.
|
|
| | | 12 | Tree
ID: 51011420
Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 20:14
|
Baldwin - your link comes from a site that isn't exactly without bias. how can it be taken seriously?
|
|
| | | 14 | DWetzel at work
ID: 278201415
Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 11:39
|
You Be The Election Judge
My goodness, people are stupid. But this is interesting.
|
|
| | | 15 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014
Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 19:19
|
Franken folks don't think this is a Colman vote.
|
|
| | | 16 | WiddleAvi
ID: 710271316
Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 21:53
|
And the Coleman folks don't think this is a vote for Franken
|
|
| | | 17 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014
Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 22:08
|
There is a conscious decision to match the other side with the same sorts of protests. If Franken is contesting examples similar to #16 than Coleman forces will too because of how it would play out in court.
#15 is a lot more uncontestable than #16 fwiw.
|
|
| | | 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 331032110
Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 22:49
|
Links?
|
|
| | | 19 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 00:18
|
Um, if they ARE doing the same sorts of protests, then it seems fair to link them.
The lawyers for both sides are partisan hacks, doing their respective jobs. If you can't admit that, then you too are a partisan hack. (Note the Ballot #7: Oops! on Day 1, which BOTH SIDES are challenging. It seems like a fairly clear double-vote to me, but what do I know?)
An amusing counter-anecdote to the picture WiddleAvi posted is that two ballots later, the Coleman campaign is arguing that a fully filled in Barkley circle and a mini-dot in Coleman's circle was an intended vote for Coleman.
(For what it's worth, the picture posted in 15 is obviously a Coleman vote.)
And finally, can we all agree that the lizard people would probably have been the best choice, all things considered?
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 331032110
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 00:30
|
I find it amusing that people are now citing the fact that one side (or the other) wants to go to judges over a point of law as somehow proof of them being underhanded about an election.
The Coleman camp has been pretty over-the-top lately, however, shrieking like little girls over the unfairness of it all. Franken's lawyer tells Coleman's shriek organ, the Wall Street Journal, to STFU. In so many words.
The WSJ, true to form, says: But who needs to worry about votes discovered in a car when the Franken campaign is now suing in court to steal the election?
|
|
| | | 21 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 06:46
|
There is a reason why you are so confident of the outcome even this late in the recount and without the lead. You know your side will shamelessly stop at nothing until they steal this, and the MSM will never tell them to give up already, you lost.
|
|
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 36100229
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 10:05
|
I have no idea where you get the idea that I am confident of the outcome. Perhaps you believe someone who is not shrieking about election theft must have some insider knowledge that their side will "win."
I believe that a hand recount, using consistent and agreed-upon methods, is a better way of telling who wins an election than phoned-in subtotals from machines with a demonstrative error rate.
And you don't, apparently.
If there was to be any "theft" it would come from machines and phone calls in which intentional error can be introduced. Not a transparent hand recount in which even the Coleman side agrees is very clear.
|
|
| | | 23 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 11:42
|
Baldwin your logic is so convoluted sometimes...
There is a conscious decision to match the other side with the same sorts of protests. If Franken is contesting examples similar to #16 (You meant 15 I assume) than Coleman forces will too because of how it would play out in court.
It doesn't stand to reason the phrase could just as easily be written If Coleman is contesting examples similar to #16 than Franken forces will too because of how it would play out in court?
#15 is a lot more uncontestable than #16 fwiw.
According to your logic.
16 looks like a pen just barely hit a dot but a complete dot was clearly and neatly filled in.
The argument concerning 15 (And I'm not saying I agree) is that the person filled in the dot, then changed his mind by Xing it out. The way to gauge this ballot would be to see if the person filled all ovals out this way. If they did the X only on this one, a reasonable person could imagine its an attempt by a feeble minded voter to cross out their vote.
How do you figure that tiny dot on an otherwise pristine vote is less irrefutable?
|
|
| | | 24 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 12:12
|
#15 is a lot more uncontestable than #16 fwiw.
How can you say that when we don't see the whole ballot in #15?
|
|
| | | 25 | WiddleAvi
ID: 710271316
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 12:18
|
The point is not who the voter had in mind. The point was that both ballots were contested, one by each camp. And for Balwin to go and criticize the Franken camp and not the Coleman camp shows how partisan he is. At least be honest and say that both sides are contesting ballots that seem pretty obvious to most people. It was the same thing when the right was calling Obama a socialist but could not show how he was any more socialist them this country has been for the last 100 years.
|
|
| | | 26 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 12:26
|
Are both ballots obvious? The one in #16 shoud be. But what if there is a big squiggle in the bubble next to Charles Aldrich's name in the ballot posted in #15? I don't know that there isn't.
One of the big problems with Baldwin is that despite his claim to not support to any political party he, instinctively affords undue benefit of doubt to Republicans that he would never think of assuming for a Democrat.
Honestly, why would someone crop out the rest of that ballot?
|
|
| | | 27 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 13:35
|
Honestly, why would someone crop out the rest of that ballot?
I don't think that so strange, they may have wanted to focus clearly on the example and have it use the least amount of bytes for the purpose of using on line. The same way you might crop a photo if you are making a point about something specific in it.
|
|
| | | 28 | Razor
ID: 181051618
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 14:17
|
But the crop leaves much to be desired. What do the other filled in bubbles on the ballot look like? Do they look like they might have possibly been crossed out?
|
|
| | | 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 14:36
|
Nerve, we don't even know whether we're looking at a cropped photo or not. The rest of the ballot may well have been cropped out of the shot when it was taken.
And for the record I believe most of the upload applications on blogging websites reduce the data size of the image in the upload process.
The point is that fully half the ballot is missing from a shot that claims to point out what isn't on the ballot.
|
|
| | | 31 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Thu, Dec 04, 2008, 21:43
|
Eye-opening piece from Ed Lasky.
|
|
| | | 32 | Baldwin
ID: 331145418
Thu, Dec 04, 2008, 22:50
|
And McCain is knee deep in helping Soros achieve those ends whether he supports them all or not. The 'campaign finance reform' he helped push thru was very much a Soros cause and effectively moved a great deal of power from political parties and directly into the hands of rich power brokers.
|
|
| | | 33 | Baldwin
ID: 331145418
Thu, Dec 04, 2008, 22:57
|
We've been here before and the thief who pulled it off is now advising Franken.
|
|
| | | 34 | Razor
ID: 181051618
Thu, Dec 04, 2008, 23:34
|
Well it ain't 60, but stealing our way to 59 will do just fine.
|
|
| | | 35 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Fri, Dec 05, 2008, 16:23
|
Baldwin We've been here before and the thief who pulled it off is now advising Franken.
That's funny, I thought you were going to say Jeb Bush.
|
|
| | | 36 | Baldwin
ID: 481125510
Fri, Dec 05, 2008, 16:32
|
I don't remember all the statistical anomilies favoring Bush in FLA.
|
|
| | |
| | | 38 | Tree
ID: 12938521
Fri, Dec 05, 2008, 17:47
|
I don't remember all the statistical anomilies favoring Bush in FLA.
of course you don't remember the oddities involved in that election - after all, when the dust cleared, the party you support, "won"...
|
|
| | | 39 | Tree
ID: 1311551521
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 07:10
|
although i feel like i saw this mentioned elsewhere on the board, i can't seem to find it.
seems, that Baldwin's current poster child for Democratic shennanigans is engaging in some of his own, as REPUBLICAN Norm Coleman isn't only being investigated for some questionable practices, he'll be using high-priced lawyers that his re-election funds are paying for...
it should come as no shock, that Coleman blames opponent Al Franken, for bringing this all to light. i suppose if Coleman murdered someone, that should be kept silent too?
no surprise Baldwin loves this guy. they're both quick to point a finger, and not willing to accept blame.
|
|
| | | 40 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017
Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 16:53
|
I just came back from the Peoria Borders store where I found Al Franken's Book titled Truth in the discount bin for $1.97.
Still way overpriced, not to mention mistitled.
|
|
| | | 41 | Tree
ID: 1311551521
Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 17:03
|
i just came back from amazon.com, where i could buy books by O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity for as low as a penny.
at the same store, i could buy a book by Ronald Reagan for $1.50.
what's your point?
that old outdated books get marked down in price (they're called "remainders", btw), or that the lower the price of the book, the more sucky the author?
|
|
| | | 42 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017
Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 17:39
|
Mighty rich book title from someone in the process of stealing an election.
|
|
| | | 43 | Tree
ID: 1311551521
Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 18:12
|
you, and people like you, are the only ones who think the recount is not legit. and, as i've said before, if it was the other way around, you'd be cheering on Coleman and still accusing Franken of cheating.
you're singularly the most partisan, biased person on these boards.
|
|
| | | 44 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017
Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 18:36
|
I've detailed numerous issues regarding this particular recount that heavily and suspiciously favor Franken including Soros involvement in rigging the state aparatus, recount figures that only move toward Franken, no other candidate slots on the recounted ballots showing similar party shifts, suspicious activity always in precints that tend democratic. Just like in Florida the election riggers are all democrats. I've been seeing this stuff from Dems in Chicago all my life and we seem to have that particular export market sown up.
|
|
| | | 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 1211122420
Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 21:14
|
You've detailed sh!t. You don't even realize what is going on, and why, and continue to make basic errors on this issue and don't seem to care who knows. You present rumors as facts (only when they appear to benefit "your" side), then never own up to the mistake when it turns out to be crap.
|
|
| | | 46 | Tree
ID: 1311551521
Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 21:23
|
Baldwin - NOTHING you have posted has even a shred of reasonable evidence behind it. it's all rumorus, hearsay and lies, and there is nothing remotely credible about it, but you're more than willing to accept them all as facts.
for the past six months, you've shown a great capacity to have no issues with flat out lies and distortions, be they your own, or someone else's.
you have posted nothing credible.
|
|
| | | 47 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 00:46
|
If every surprise ballot box discovered in someone's trunk just happened to always happen in heavy Coleman precincts you of course wouldn't find that odd.
You guys have long since lost common sense and the ability to recognise the truth.
I used to think that the web would one day be censored to death. Perhaps their plan was to deconstruct it to death all along. Zeitgeist puppets would just lose the ability of independent thot until the web collapsed like Babylon at the confusing of the languages.
|
|
| | | 48 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 01:00
|
You blithering idiot. The point, which seems to be lost on your tiny pea-sized little microscopic "brain", is that they HAVEN'T all been. That's the point. If you can't comprehend that, or more to the point refuse to acknowledge reality, then there's no point in anyone at all continuing to listen to your blathering crap.
Merry Christmas. May Santa bring you a brain.
|
|
| | | 49 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 05:57
|
Show me a ballot box in a trunk from a republican precinct then. The shenanegins are all democrat. So many stories from the Panhandle in the Bush/Gore FLA attempted theft. Not.
|
|
| | | 50 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 10:56
|
Hmm, dummy, not even a notice of the link I posted in 37? Wherein 133 ballots in a heavily Democratic county were counted and then ended up missing AFTER the count and of course now Coleman doesn't want them counted?
Hmm?????
I'd wager that some of THOSE are in a Coleman trunk, if I were a lunatic like you.
|
|
| | | 51 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 11:05
|
Oh, and in a slight effort to inject, you know, some facts into your pin head, go to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's web site. They have shown, I believe, EVERY SINGLE FREAKING ballot that was recounted, and the result.
Go through there and see which ballots, specifically, you disagree with (so we can mock your willful ignorance further).
One could equally easily spin things to suggest that it was Coleman who tried to steal the election via shady work in the original count. I don't think that's specifically the case, and in fact I doubt it, but I KNOW that if the (D) were ahead and the (R) took the lead in the recount, you'd be crowing about how the (D) tried to steal it and got caught.
So, in short, I really don't care what you say at this point except for the sheer entertainment value--and that's quickly waning. One can only laugh at so many train wrecks.
|
|
| | | 52 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 16:31
|
What good does it do to look at a recounted ballot if it was counted originally and then shoved in a trunk and mysteriously reappeared to be recounted double?
|
|
| | | 53 | Perm Dude
ID: 311122510
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 17:07
|
The "trunk" story is bogus.
For those keeping track at home, that is 0-1 for facts in post 52.
|
|
| | | 54 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 17:45
|
The point, moron in post 52, is that the Coleman people didn't want it counted at all. Even though it had been counted once.
Because someone (and here, I'll try your way to see if you understand) from the Coleman campaign steals a bunch of counted ballots, that's supposed to disqualify them?
|
|
| | | 55 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 18:32
|
Occasionally, an immature user will bombard the forum with inappropriate messages. Usually, moderators are around and quickly clean up the situation, but sometimes this will happen while the board is temporarily unattended. If this happens, please heed the following advice:
(1) Please do NOT respond to any inappropriate messages. Any harsh responses only serve to encourage this behavior. If we show a group resolve to totally ignore these intrusions, we will thwart the craving for attention. Thus, no matter how much you want to respond to abusive messages - PLEASE DON'T. (Consider this a form of "shunning".)
(2) If inappropriate posts are not being addressed, send me an email. I spend a lot of time online, but (believe it or not), not all of it is at this forum.
(3) Users who post profane or disruptive messages will be blocked from the ability to post new messages. If you engage an abuser in a profane exchange, you risk losing your privileges as well.
As we all know, the world is full of jerks who crave attention and who don't know how to conduct themselves in public. Although the overall quality of the messages at this forum is usually quite high, occasional unfortunate episodes have occurred in the past, and will occur in the future. Be assured that they will be dealt with as quickly as is possible. But please let me (and the moderators) handle these situations.
Be strong. Ignore them.
|
|
| | | 56 | Building 7
ID: 3111252013
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 19:40
|
This guy is tossing out repeated insults on Christmas Day.
|
|
| | | 57 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 19:55
|
What I find intriguing is this, So, in short, I really don't care what you say at this point except for the sheer entertainment value--and that's quickly waning.
But then he responds with another post. If he doesn't care, why continue? Could he be lying? It's sad really. Like you said, it's Christmas Day and he's doing that. Makes you wonder what he's got going on at home.
|
|
| | | 58 | Perm Dude
ID: 311122510
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 21:49
|
Perhaps there is another reason than entertainment? I can't speak for DW, but I post often simply to refut the out-and-out lying.
|
|
| | | 59 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 23:23
|
Pretty much that, PD, just in case anyone else might actually believe it.
I suppose it was sort of a final realization as I wrote it that bothering with it is completely futile. And also that anyone reading it is either too stupid to recognize it for the intellectual diarrhea that it is, or doesn't need my help.
As for you Boxman, I can assure you that my home life is just fine. I apologize for the timing of posting within 24 hours of reading the aforementioned verbal diarrhea--I assure you that had it been posted on June 11th, February 29th, or any other date, my reaction would have been exactly the same.
I notice that you have no such questions about why Boldwin would post suddenly in a bunch of threads on Christmas Eve. It must be because you agree with him, I guess, because otherwise surely you would be interested in fostering the intellectual debate you allegedly crave. I fail to see why posting garbage on Christmas Eve should entitle one to a get-out-of-challenge-free card.
|
|
| | | 60 | Perm Dude
ID: 301218
Thu, Jan 01, 2009, 09:38
|
Norm Coleman: The Al Gore of 2009?
Looks like Norm Coleman wants to cherry-pick his way back into the Senate. Under the rules set out by the court and agreed to by both campaigns, they are essentially the UN and have to both agree which absentee ballots are permitted to be counted. With someone like Coleman, this is a license to throw away any legal reason to reject ballots in the "blue" parts of the state.
|
|
| | | 61 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Jan 01, 2009, 11:46
|
Despicable... but I suspect they'll both be doing it.
Though the particular case highlighted is fairly silly:
"Shirley Graham was astonished to learn that a lawyer from Norm Coleman's campaign on Tuesday blocked her absentee ballot from being added to the U.S. Senate recount.
"I'm an election judge," said Graham, of Duluth. "I expected to be the last person whose ballot wouldn't be counted."
Her sealed ballot was among 60 from St. Louis County that were blocked by representatives of Coleman and Al Franken during the first day of a statewide review of absentee ballots that may have been wrongly rejected in last month's election. Under a state Supreme Court ruling, local election officials and the two campaigns must all agree that a ballot was wrongly rejected for it to be sent along to St. Paul for inclusion in the recount.
Coleman's camp, which rejected 59 of the 60 ballots set aside Tuesday in St. Louis County, objected to Graham's ballot on the grounds that the date next to her signature did not match the date next to the signature of her witness, Jack Armstrong.
There are a couple of things in the preceding paragraphs that the Franken campaign ought to be worried about. Firstly, quite a high percentage of absentee ballots were rejected -- 60 out of what had been reported yesterday to be 161 ballots under consideration in St. Louis County, or 37 percent. All but one of those objections were made by the Coleman campaign. Secondly, the Coleman campaign is getting away with blocking ballots for asinine reasons. In the case cited above, for instance, the ballot was rejected because the date provided by the voucher did not match the date the date provided by the voter. Not only is there no requirement that the dates of the signatures match -- there is no requirement that the signatures are dated, period (see the applicable statutes for yourself here and here)." (emphasis mine)
I'm sure that Boldwin will be along to tell us why the election judge was just trying to steal the seat though, and Coleman's lawyers are merely defending Truth (not the book!), Justice, and the American Way. Even though there's no way of knowing for sure who she voted for. (Delicious irony would be if that was a Coleman vote.)
|
|
| | | 62 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 06:40
|
I am so convinced that the fix is in that I can't find the energy to participate in this thread. It's sickening, and so obvious as to be an insult to the intelligence. You will just have to imagine my position, as so many of you already do instead of grasping my points.
|
|
| | | 63 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 07:41
|
I am so convinced that the fix is in that I can't find the energy to participate in this thread.
Hmmm does that make any sense or is a complete cop out?
I mean do you just have an intuition? Just a vibe? Or is there solid evidence that the "fix is in"? In which case why wouldn't you want to lay out the case for it?
If it's just "a feeling" then yeah I see your point, best to back away from the debate.
|
|
| | | 64 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 10:17
|
It was painfully obvious from the way the first controversies and 'discovered' Franken votes were all concentrated in the most dem machine districts [just as the attempted theft in Florida was all centered in the most dem districts]. The fact that Soros picked the official in charge of the recount and the guy who engineered the Washington state election theft recently is in on Franken's team, was the early nail in the coffin.
And yes it is a cop-out. With the deck so stacked what's the use in my looking at every ballot?
|
|
| | | 65 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 10:25
|
WEll, if they're "stealing" it, they're doing it in plain sight. If you decide to shut your eyes to it and just assume the worst, it's hard to really care what you think.
|
|
| | | 66 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 11:57
|
The fact that Soros picked the official in charge of the recount
Not only is that not a fact, it's a blatant lie. How comical that you claim your intelligence is insulted in #62, then proceed to insult the intelligence of this forum with false claims of facts.
The Ed Lansky article that I linked to in #31 relating to the subject:
History seems to be repeating itself in Minnesota where that state's Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, was also elected with the help of the Secretary of States project.
Did you read that key word - elected?
It's certainly fair game to point out influences that result in election results, and whether they serve the interest of the public. It's fair game to examine the powers that be and their financial contributions regardless of what side of the political spectrum they reside.
How is it fair game to post a lie, then claim it as a fact?
|
|
| | | 67 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 11:59
|
What makes you think he has the slightest interest in fairness or the truth? Have you learned nothing?
|
|
| | | 68 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 12:19
|
Yes, of course I know he was elected but when Rothchild's money applied by Soros to the project of getting their people in position to count the vote...it really isn't a fair election.
Certainly no one else was paying as much attention or contributing to remotely balance that concerted effort.
"It's not the vote that counts - it's who counts the vote" - Joseph Stalin
|
|
| | | 69 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 12:23
|
To make that even clearer, Soros can come very very close to guaranteeing who becomes president with the kind of money he controls and the way he engineered the hamstringing of traditional campaign funding, but he absolutely decides who becomes dogcatcher if he really wants to, and he really really wanted to count the vote after Florida.
|
|
| | | 70 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 14:18
|
From Lansky's article in #31:
Taco Bell millionaire Rob McKay is a key figure in funding and running this effort. He is the chair of the Democracy Alliance
Why didn't you claim that The fact that McKay picked the official in charge of the recount, or Rothchild's money applied by McKay?
Don't bother to answer, because we all know that conjuring Soros is meant to bring visions of a Satanic figure bent on destroying America. That's a much easier process than trying to conjure the same image through buying cheap tacos promoted by cute talking chihuahuas.
You act like there's no wealthy Republican donors( Bob Perry, for instance) or organizations(RightChange.com) that attempt to influence elections, no K Street project, or virtually any conservative power structure to compete in the modern political arena. It's just easier to claim that elections aren't fair.
If conservatives are losing the political battle, it's because it's become a movement of whining. It's the media's fault. They want to purge RINOs, neocons, Mormons, non-social conservatives and libertarians while embracing polarizing figures like Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, who can barely complete a sentence without embarrassing herself.
Disagree? Then explain to me why George W Bush, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Chuck Hagel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Lugar, Arlen Spector, Olivia Snowe, Pat Buchanan, George Will and Colin Powell, to name a few, are no longer (or have never been) welcome in the conservative ranks.
By the time it's whittled down to who is considered a "true" conservative, who's left, and what's the result? President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and possibly Senator Al Franken.
|
|
| | | 71 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122
Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 14:47
|
Liberals in republican clothing can raise funds but they generally lose because the public would rather have a real democrat instead of a democrat lite republican. [if that is their only choice]
On the otherhand this is still a conservative leaning country and it will remain one until the word liberal isn't something Dems have to run away from to get elected.
Conservatives do not need to run away from their principles to get elected...except when it comes to trawling for campaign funds from the power elite.
|
|
| | | 72 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 05:31
|
On the otherhand this is still a conservative leaning country
Really? I was starting to think the Republican President was turning it into a Socialist country.
|
|
| | | 73 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122
Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 05:43
|
It is a conservative leaning country until illegal immigration makes even more progress and Barrack's education secretary succeeds in radicalizing the pre-college set and they reach voting age.
Illegal immigration is a leaky bucket for liberals because they often become common sense americans in time. But I think globalists will be successful in their scheme and america will become less and less american. The melting pot isn't getting as much melting done as it once did.
|
|
| | | 74 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 00:20
|
Baldwin I've just read that the Minnesota election isn't valid until the Governor signs the certificate...the governor is a Republican.
Do you figure he's in on the Franken fix also?
|
|
| | | 75 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 00:23
|
Illegal immigration is a leaky bucket for liberals because they often become common sense Americans in time.
Such a one sided point of view that ignores reality.
It's a leaky bucket for Republicans because many small business owners, who are often Republicans, use illegal immigrants as labor. Especially in certain states.
Don't kid yourself that there aren't plenty of people who pull the Republican lever who use illegal immigrant labor, probably more then any liberals do if we can agree small business owners are more likely Republicans.
|
|
| | | 76 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122
Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 00:42
|
I completely agree with you that business interests are being served. This is how the RINO's get harnessed.
That is a different issue than the point that globalist' interests in destroying America and homogenizing the world's cultures in advance of world government are being served.
Another seperate issue is that democrat party interests are being served by illegal immigration as they anticipate these will vote democratic as soon as democrats figure out how to enfranchise them, legally or illegally.
|
|
| | | 77 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 13:45
|
It's Coleman's turn to try to steal it now
Now he wants additional absentee ballots counted, after the MN Supreme Court's (fairly silly) ruling that both sides had to agree for a ballot to be counted.
|
|
| | | 78 | Perm Dude
ID: 10558
Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 12:36
|
Another seperate issue is that democrat party interests are being served by illegal immigration as they anticipate these will vote democratic as soon as democrats figure out how to enfranchise them, legally or illegally.
People vote for those they project to look out for their best interests. Given the stoking the Republican Party has been doing for all things foreign (legal and illegal) it should be no surprise the the Democratic Party is picking these people up.
But (again) don't kid yourself: The Democratic Party has blown away Republicans nationwide the last two election cycles without these illegal-turned-legal votes. You're putting the cart before the horse on that excuse.
You should also take a look at what the people at the border think about immigration--those are the people more directly affected by it.
|
|
| | | 79 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 12:41
|
People vote for those they project to look out for their best interests. Given the stoking the Republican Party has been doing for all things foreign (legal and illegal) it should be no surprise the the Democratic Party is picking these people up.
are you trying to say that because the republicans are probably going to lose anyway it is ok for illegal residents to vote, since they are going to vote for the winner?
|
|
| | | 80 | Perm Dude
ID: 10558
Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 12:47
|
Not at all. I'm saying that Republicans have written off the immigrant vote.
|
|
| | | 81 | Perm Dude
ID: 10558
Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 12:48
|
Except for the Cubans. But the Cubans are freaking crazy.
|
|
| | | 82 | walk
ID: 181472714
Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 12:48
|
That's some interpretation of PD's comment, boikin. I'll let PD answer, but that's not how I would have interpreted it. I would have interpreted it as: "With the heavy republican anti-immigration platform seen in 2008, it's not surprising for that folks with ethnic backgrounds would vote for a Dem."
|
|
| | | 83 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 13:13
|
Republicans like Tancredo, who are adamant in their wish to have all illegal Hispanics deported or jailed or both, has created a backlash among Hispanic Americans, as they perceive themselves being lumped into a larger bias.
Even though the Tancredos of the world usually qualify their rantings with a statement like
"I have no problem with the Hispanics who are here legally"
he appears to forget or ignore that millions of Hispanics, especially in the Southwest, have roots in this country that precede statehood. They are just as American as the Irish, Italian, Polish, etc that landed at Ellis Island in the early decades of the 20th century. Yet many are finding that the anti-Hispanic hysteria promoted by Tancredo is generating a predjudice against Hispanics in general, and this has caused a huge exodus of Hispanic Americans from the Republican ranks.
|
|
| | | 84 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 13:28
|
never mind i see it now. I am haveing trouble reading with this cold i keep miss reading things.
|
|
| | | 85 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 02:52
|
WSJ has an article critisizing the handling of the recount in favor of Franken. I would be interested in hearing what the counter arguments are to the points they make.
Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.
Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.
This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.
In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.
Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency.
And then there are the absentee ballots. The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, and though the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes.
Both campaigns have also suggested that Mr. Ritchie's office made mistakes in tabulating votes that had been challenged by either of the campaigns. And the Canvassing Board appears to have applied inconsistent standards in how it decided some of these challenged votes -- in ways that, again on net, have favored Mr. Franken.
The question is how the board can certify a fair and accurate election result given these multiple recount problems.
Some of the points above are vague, they leave out the evidence of the charges, but if true it would seem there is cause for concern regarding the outcome.
WSJ having a conservative bias adds a grain of salt to some of the vague charges.
Comments from the Franken supporters?
|
|
| | | 86 | Perm Dude
ID: 5303668
Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 09:43
|
FiveThirtyEight has covered the points quite well, I think, with point-by-point rebuttals.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with taking such a position [of calling the Board biased and inconsistent]. The Journal's editorial, however, has several basic facts wrong, makes several other assertions based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence, and generally has little understanding of the process that has taken place to date.
The WSJ isn't at all interested in the truth on the point, implying that Coleman is only interested in "standardizing" or making some sort of fair overall process. But this is far from the truth.
|
|
| | | 87 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 10:28
|
Good find PD
|
|
| | | 88 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 13:34
|
Yeah, I read that WSJ article and just by mere memory of what I had read elsewhere saw how uninformed and lacking in knowledge of the rules it was. For example, Coleman's team did not submit their list of absentee ballots to review in the alotted time. There was also plenty of "proof" to the missing vote charge in Hennepin county. There were five envelopes, markeed 1 of 5, 2 of 5, and so on. One of these envelopes was missing. Additionally, a tally of voter signatures also confirmed the discrepancy in missing votes.
WSJ was biased and sloppy. Nate Silver and 538 does a good job of making it clear.
|
|
| | |
| | | 90 | Baldwin
ID: 180202819
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 16:08
|
Once again, liberals think they can get away with merely providing a source that agrees with them, without weighing the actual merits of the arguments. Whenever they find a link, we are supposed to lay down and accept that the argument is over.
Anytime Franken is allowed to walk away with more votes from a Franken heavy county, than there were ballots counted or persons registered to vote, the issue is not settled. Oh the Soros' fix may stay rigged, but it isn't right, just the same.
But PD believes he's all about the truth when he swallows that down whole, and the WSJ are the sloppy ones.
|
|
| | | 91 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 16:22
|
Once again, liberals think they can get away with merely providing a source that agrees with them without weighing the actual merits of the arguments. Whenever they find a link, we are supposed to lay down and accept that the argument is over.
LOL!! Project much?
That is without question the most hilariously hypocritical thing I've read this week.
|
|
| | | 92 | Baldwin
ID: 180202819
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 16:29
|
And that post is your most hypocritical moment. That is in fact your achilles heel, in what would otherwise make a wonderful poster/blogger.
|
|
| | | 93 | dwetzet on BB
ID: 590182120
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:28
|
Silly me for linking the largest paper in Minnesota, which has been extensively covering the proceedings of this state election since November. I looked for an Ann Coulter piece but didn't find one, so I settled.
Knew you would take the bait though, it was really too easy. Rather than look at the argument, knowing it is indefensible on its face, you try to deflect attention by blaming the messenger.
Go on, tell me why Coleman's attorneys were arguing that recounts were a waste of time, then when they started to lose suddenly became converts to the "count every vote" camp. For bonus points, do so without using the words liberal, mainstream media, or Soros. For even more bonus points, do it in a way that isn't absurdly ignorant.
|
|
| | | 94 | Baldwin
ID: 180202819
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:35
|
I have to sleep sometime.
|
|
| | | 95 | Baldwin
ID: 180202819
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:37
|
Is there really no other conservative to hold down the fort? I've been at it for five hours and I didn't have even that luxury.
|
|
| | | 96 | walk
ID: 181472714
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:48
|
It's true though...I've been following this election from the git go continuously, and the Star Tribune of Minneapolis has easily the best comprehensive and up-to-date and objective reporting. Even user comments have said as much. Baldwin, must you criticize EVERYTHING that does not support your preference? Pick and choose, bro. Sometimes you are correct! But when you take a shotgun approach, it undermines your own 1-man show.
|
|
| | | 97 | Baldwin
ID: 180202819
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:57
|
This what happens when you abuse every conservative right out the door, or insult their intelligence so badly they can't tolerate the place.
Not everyone has both the loyalty to this site and the thickness of hide to tolerate the working conditions.
|
|
| | | 98 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 18:17
|
I looked for an Ann Coulter piece but didn't find one, so I settled.
That's because Ann is too busy self-aggrandizing, as well as lying in
today's column.
She begins:
I notice that liberals have not challenged the overall thesis of my rocketing bestseller, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," which is that liberals always play the victim in order to advance, win advantages and oppress others.
My rocketing bestseller? While it is #2 on the NY Times non-fiction list(that's Treason Times in Annspeak), it's hard to determine how many of those books were giveaways with a subscription to Townhall magazine.
In hard sales terms, the book fell to #26 on Amazon.com after a high of #15 in its debut 2 weeks ago.
I suppose it isn't lying to say it's rocketing, since it is, in the opposite direction. Most people consider rocketing to mean going up.
|
|
| | | 99 | Tree
ID: 1311551521
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 19:38
|
This what happens when you abuse every conservative right out the door, or insult their intelligence so badly they can't tolerate the place.
Baldwin - you are the one that has driven the conservatives out the door. Madman, MBJ, Steve Houpt - they didn't leave because they were abused - they used to have some of the most impressive posts here.
but when the guy yelling loudest sounds absolutely bat$hit crazy most of the time, the rest don't want to associate with him...
granted, i shouldn't speak for them, but i doubt any of those guys were scared off by anyone here from the left side of the tent.
you should listen to yourself. you sound crazy half the time, and you're far and away the most rude, arrogant prick to post on these boards, resorting to name calling far more often than anyone else. (yes i realize the irony of my statement)
|
|
| | | 100 | Baldwin
ID: 180202819
Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 22:46
|
Go ahead and get even one of those guys to blame me for their leaving.
|
|
| | | 101 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 15:52
|
For bonus points, do so without using the words liberal, mainstream media, or Soros.
Or Zietgeist, or meme, or NYT or...
|
|
| | | 102 | Perm Dude
ID: 55072921
Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 16:03
|
Re #98: rocketing bestseller
I don't know if Ann Coulter realizes it, but that's a redundant statement. Books which are on the bestseller lists are there because of bursts (or a single burst) of concentrated sales numbers within the range in question. For example, if Borders places a single order for 500K Coulter books for their stores, that would reflect in a real uptick on the bestseller lists. But 750K in purchases over a period of, say, a six-month period won't be enough to get a book on the list, even though you've sold more actual books in the second example.
The best seller lists also do not reflect net sales, but gross sales. If Borders ends up returning 100K books (or remaindering-in-place by getting publisher authorization to report them as returns but keeping the books and selling them for $4 each), none of that is reflective on the best seller lists.
Net sales over time is a better reflection of a book's value, IMO. Often best sellers can do just that, through a paperback re-issue and so forth. But Coulter titles are just as often in the bargain bin as they are on the New Books table.
Would love to see a Best Non-Selling Books, which would track the highest number of remaindered books being offered in a week. I suspect Coulter would be a "rocketing non-seller" as well.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 105 | Perm Dude
ID: 24321178
Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 15:36
|
Reminds me of a developer we had at a Planning Commission meeting here once. After being told he needed to submit missing paperwork before his land development application could be considered, he literally whined to us to "just sign the approval and I won't have to bother you again."
It was about the only time I've ever seen the Chairman speechless.
|
|
| | | 107 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, May 12, 2009, 09:32
|
Stealing their way to 41A new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll has found that 64 percent of those responding believe Coleman, the Republican, should accept the recount trial court's April 13 verdict that Democrat Franken won the race by 312 votes.
Only 28 percent consider last week's appeal by Coleman to the Minnesota Supreme Court "appropriate."
Large majorities of those polled said they would oppose any further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Should Coleman win at the state Supreme Court, 57 percent of respondents said Franken should concede. And 73 percent believe Coleman should give up if he loses at the state's highest court.
|
|
| | | 108 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:30
|
Gore was justified in extending recount after recount when he had never been ahead, but Coleman is unjustified in pushing the issue when he had it won only to have it pulled away by Soros' and Chicago election style shennanigans.
|
|
| | | 109 | Perm Dude
ID: 26439108
Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:33
|
Coleman lost the election. Deal with it.
|
|
| | | 110 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:39
|
Soros had bought and rigged Minnesota long before the votes were cast.
|
|
| | | 111 | Perm Dude
ID: 26439108
Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:43
|
Yeah--Bush's 22% disapproval ratings had nothing to do with it...
|
|
| | | 112 | Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, May 12, 2009, 11:04
|
So basically the people of Minnesota are tired of hearing about it and tired of paying for more lawyers.
I haven't been following the issue, how many recounts were done and how many court decisions have their been on all of the contested ballots?
|
|
| | | 113 | Perm Dude
ID: 354361211
Wed, May 13, 2009, 10:49
|
In today's Coleman news, he wants permission to use campaign funds to cover the cost of responding to a Talking Points Memo story about some money funnelling which appears to be illegal, if true.
The problem? Team Coleman never actually responded to the story.
|
|
| | | 114 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 14:38
|
|
|
| | | 115 | nerveclinic
ID: 21503015
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:00
|
Gore was justified in extending recount after recount when he had never been ahead, but Coleman is unjustified in pushing the issue when he had it won only to have it pulled away by Soros' and Chicago election style shennanigans.
Baldwin you are forgetting one fact. Gore won the election. Analyzing the data after the fact it's virtually certain.
I laid out the stats here before and no one was able to counter the points.
What don't you get?
|
|
| | | 116 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:02
|
Nerve I never saw the post where is it?
|
|
| | | 117 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:04
|
#108.
|
|
| | | 118 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:08
|
Sorry i was asking about nerves post on gore winning the election.
|
|
| | | 119 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:13
|
I don't know what Nerve's talking about. I'm pretty sure it was settled by several independant researchers that Bush legitimately won FL. Gore did win the national popular vote, but not the electoral college.
|
|
| | | 120 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:23
|
News to me. I thought the governing council simply decreed it.
I have never seen satisfactory evidence either way, and assumed I never would.
|
|
| | | 121 | nerveclinic
ID: 162013
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 04:20
|
I don't have any idea where the thread is at this point.
In a nut shell, of the ballots that were disallowed because they were not correctly, or fully punched, Gore had close to 40,000 of them and Bush about 17,000.
Yes the ballots were disqualified because the voter had not correctly punched the card, but they were ballots never the less that a reasonable minded person would accept that the person clearly intended to vote for Gore, not Bush.
The fact they look more closely look like a Gore vote was not a statement of opinion, it is a statement of fact. The problem is the ballots were disqualified so it didn't matter.
So an open minded person could at least accept that while Gore did lose, because the ballots are disqualified, an impartial person could see that the voter clearly intended to vote for Gore and he should of been President, if Jeb Bushes voting machines worked properly.
This would have given him a comfortable win in Fla. thus the election win.
I voted for neither Bush nor Gore and I am not a Gore believer or fan but I know the truth when I see it.
I have no idea where it would be now, it was in a thread long after the election had been decided and after a lot more information was released concerning the ballots.
|
|
| | | 122 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 09:51
|
As I recall, the Miami Herald spent about 4 months looking over all the ballots and determined that Bush won, in the end, even allowing for disputed ballots. I might have a link somewhere.
Coleman, of course, was never ahead in the counting.
|
|
| | | 123 | Seattle Zen
ID: 445123018
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 11:22
|
Gore won. Bili is right, there was so many disputed ballots and lawsuits in the wings that we could still be arguing who won. Every newspaper investigation made quite a few assumptions of their own, none of which were ironclad. In short, we will never know, meaning Gore won.
|
|
| | | 124 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 11:42
|
"In short, we will never know, meaning Gore won."
Huh?
|
|
| | | 125 | Seattle Zen
ID: 445123018
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 11:48
|
we will never know
Official answer. Can't have an illegitimate president sitting in the White House.
meaning Gore won
Da Truth!
|
|
| | | 126 | Boldwin
ID: 25282121
Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 11:58
|
Coleman, of course, was never ahead in the counting. - PD
It was only when Secretary of State Mark Ritchie [Soros funded, ACORN endorsed ally]) allowed the Canvassing board to add in previously rejected absentee ballots, that Al Franken took a lead.
|
|
| | | 127 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 19:43
|
Completely mistated on my part, sorry. The race was so close that no winner could be declared on election day (Coleman was ahead before the recount with something like 700 votes). The automatic recount part, and every legal step after that, gave Franken more votes. And election night counting, by and large, included very few provisional or absentee ballots.
Franken got more votes, and in the end they were counted.
|
|
| | | 128 | Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 19:50
|
I suppose to be fair and proportional to your outrageous treatment of me lately on other threads, I should now call you a liar for the next thirty posts but I just can't work up the same mendacity as you lefties.
|
|
| | | 129 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 20:06
|
When you admit a mistake no one will call you a liar anymore on it. Do you need to twist even such a simple procedure? Tell a deliberate untruth and stick with it even when called out: Lying. Correct a mistake: Not lying.
But you don't admit mistakes. Or won't. Hard to tell where your humble heart is supposed to fit it. If only you stuck with the New Testament when it comes to how you act toward others.
|
|
| | | 130 | Boldwin
ID: 467910
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 20:08
|
I did not lie, while you and your buddies slandered all day long.
|
|
| | | 131 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 23:22
|
"I suppose to be fair and proportional to your outrageous treatment of me lately on other threads, I should now call you a liar for the next thirty posts but I just can't work up the same mendacity as you lefties."
Off the medications again?
|
|
| | | 132 | Boldwin
ID: 467910
Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 05:17
|
Break out the entire top ten cheesy liberal forum slanders while we are at it.
Like you just discovered them.
|
|
| | |
|
|