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

[Article 15]

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

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

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

Why?

Because the Democrat won.

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

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

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

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

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

Yep, there it is, folks.

Art thinks the Electoral College is worse than voter fraud.

Naw.

Sometimes you lose by a half a million votes but win. Thems the breaks but that was the rules and system in place. Ho hum.

And sometimes elections are really close.

The GOP dragged out the MN Senate election, had their recounts, and decided not to further appeal. Coleman conceded. Thems the breaks but that's rules and the way the system played out. Ho hum.

You taking the position that Democrats hate Democracy and the Dem winning is all that matters when all of this is pointed out to you is what makes you an ass and a hypocrite.

Your nothing but a hyper partisan toolbag, Daveman, that much is very obvious.

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

In Florida it was the law that the Secretary State had the right to certify the election, and she did. If the Florida Supreme Court didn't know that, to quote...you..."Who's fault is that?"....

Wait, that's different, a Democrat didn't win...

 

[daveman]

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

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

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

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

No, you''re supposed to condemn widespread vote fraud, that you idiots on the left either claim never happened, or never happened to sufficient extent to alter a national race.

You're supposed to oppose people being disenfranchised.

You're supposed to take the democratic process seriously.

But when the Democrat wins, none of that matters.

 

[daveman]

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

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

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

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

Yep, there it is, folks.

Art thinks the Electoral College is worse than voter fraud.

Naw.

Sometimes you lose by a half a million votes but win. Thems the breaks but that was the rules and system in place. Ho hum.

And sometimes elections are really close.

The GOP dragged out the MN Senate election, had their recounts, and decided not to further appeal. Coleman conceded. Thems the breaks but that's rules and the way the system played out. Ho hum.

You taking the position that Democrats hate Democracy and the Dem winning is all that matters when all of this is pointed out to you is what makes you an ass and a hypocrite.

Your nothing but a hyper partisan toolbag, Daveman, that much is very obvious.

I'm sure I am, to one whose perception of reality is as fucked up as yours.

The Democrat wins = free and fair election. (Just ignore all the convictions for voter fraud.)

The Democrat loses = STOLEN!! (Just ignore the Constitution.)

 

[bripat9643]

In Florida it was the law that the Secretary State had the right to certify the election, and she did. If the Florida Supreme Court didn't know that, to quote...you..."Who's fault is that?"....

Wait, that's different, a Democrat didn't win...

The law only matters when it helps Democrats. Otherwise you have to count votes until the Democrat wins.

 

[Article 15]

Yep, there it is, folks.

Art thinks the Electoral College is worse than voter fraud.

Naw.

Sometimes you lose by a half a million votes but win. Thems the breaks but that was the rules and system in place. Ho hum.

And sometimes elections are really close.

The GOP dragged out the MN Senate election, had their recounts, and decided not to further appeal. Coleman conceded. Thems the breaks but that's rules and the way the system played out. Ho hum.

You taking the position that Democrats hate Democracy and the Dem winning is all that matters when all of this is pointed out to you is what makes you an ass and a hypocrite.

Your nothing but a hyper partisan toolbag, Daveman, that much is very obvious.

I'm sure I am,

Somewhere deep down, you know you are.

to one whose perception of reality is as fucked up as yours.

more like to people who have a lick of objectivity

The Democrat wins = free and fair election. (Just ignore all the convictions for voter fraud.)

The Democrat loses = STOLEN!! (Just ignore the Constitution.)

I get it.

Republican wins = thems the rules

Republican loses = the rules don't matter anymore

 

[Uncensored2008]

Naw.

Sometimes you lose by a half a million votes but win. Thems the breaks but that was the rules and system in place. Ho hum.

Problem is, you don't have the wits to grasp WHY the EC is vital to a functioning nation.

Without the EC, California and New York decide every presidential election, all other states are denied any say in the process.

Look, you of the left advocate dictatorship, so the idea that the two most populous states should have the exclusive right to decide who is in the White House no doubt appeals to you.

We of the right support liberty, so the electoral college giving voice to every state and enfranchising all voters appeals to us.

The divide between left and right is that of authoritarianism versus liberty, and always will be.

And sometimes elections are really close.

The GOP dragged out the MN Senate election, had their recounts, and decided not to further appeal. Coleman conceded. Thems the breaks but that's rules and the way the system played out. Ho hum.

The issue here is the fraud.

You taking the position that Democrats hate Democracy and the Dem winning is all that matters when all of this is pointed out to you is what makes you an ass and a hypocrite.

democrats care about power. You seek power for your party, your party seeks unbridled power over the subjects of the nation. Generally your party holds an "any means necessary" position. If winning an election fairly will give them power, they will hold elections. If fraud is the path the power, then they will engage in fraud. If violence is needed to obtain power, then riots will occur.

Your nothing but a hyper partisan toolbag, Daveman, that much is very obvious.

Irony indeed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

No, you''re supposed to condemn widespread vote fraud, that you idiots on the left either claim never happened, or never happened to sufficient extent to alter a national race.

You're supposed to oppose people being disenfranchised.

You're supposed to take the democratic process seriously.

But when the Democrat wins, none of that matters.

So you're saying that the most reprehensible thing to do would be to say 'you lost, get over it',

like we heard from CONSERVATIVES and REPUBLICANS approximately 2.6 zillion times after the 2000 Bush/Gore election?

When did you decide that your fellow conservatives were such scumbags in that regard? I don't recall ever seeing you mention that...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Naw.

Sometimes you lose by a half a million votes but win. Thems the breaks but that was the rules and system in place. Ho hum.

Problem is, you don't have the wits to grasp WHY the EC is vital to a functioning nation.

Without the EC, California and New York decide every presidential election, all other states are denied any say in the process.

.

When's the last time a candidate lost California and New York and still won the presidency?

Or vice versa...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

In Florida it was the law that the Secretary State had the right to certify the election, and she did. If the Florida Supreme Court didn't know that, to quote...you..."Who's fault is that?"....

Wait, that's different, a Democrat didn't win...

Was the Minnesota Senate election certified by the proper authority?

That's a yes or no question, btw. Which I'm not confident I'll actually get an answer.

 

[Article 15]

Naw.

Sometimes you lose by a half a million votes but win. Thems the breaks but that was the rules and system in place. Ho hum.

Problem is, you don't have the wits to grasp WHY the EC is vital to a functioning nation.

Without the EC, California and New York decide every presidential election, all other states are denied any say in the process.

Look, you of the left advocate dictatorship, so the idea that the two most populous states should have the exclusive right to decide who is in the White House no doubt appeals to you.

We of the right support liberty, so the electoral college giving voice to every state and enfranchising all voters appeals to us.

The divide between left and right is that of authoritarianism versus liberty, and always will be.

And sometimes elections are really close.

The GOP dragged out the MN Senate election, had their recounts, and decided not to further appeal. Coleman conceded. Thems the breaks but that's rules and the way the system played out. Ho hum.

The issue here is the fraud.

You taking the position that Democrats hate Democracy and the Dem winning is all that matters when all of this is pointed out to you is what makes you an ass and a hypocrite.

democrats care about power. You seek power for your party, your party seeks unbridled power over the subjects of the nation. Generally your party holds an "any means necessary" position. If winning an election fairly will give them power, they will hold elections. If fraud is the path the power, then they will engage in fraud. If violence is needed to obtain power, then riots will occur.

Your nothing but a hyper partisan toolbag, Daveman, that much is very obvious.

Irony indeed.

uncensored, in case you haven't noticed I think of all the USMB wingnuts you are one of the wing nuttiest and a total waste of space and therefor I very rarely acknowledge your presence.

But just for the hell of it I will explain to you that I am fine with the electoral college and wish for it to still be the way we elect a President. I am prefectly fine with the results of the 2000 election. Those are the rules of the game. Sometimes a candidate will get more votes but still be the loser. It happens and nothing is going to change it.

In regards to the Minnesota Senate election I feel the same way. The GOP had their recounts and their opportunity to make an appeal. They didn't and Coleman conceded. The election was legally certified and Franken was sent to the Senate. The rules that were in place were followed and Franken won the seat.

This gnashing over voter fraud that Daveman can't prove swung the election is nothing but partisan dribble from a drooling partisan.

It's quite telling that Daveman has picked this battle and chosen to attack "the left" for only caring when the Democrat wins but he can't even bring himself to say that when you look at the raw vote of the 2000 election the "true will" of the people was denied.

The reality is that Daveman's line of attack is just him projecting his own partisanship and motivation for making hay of this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When's the last time a candidate lost California and New York and still won the presidency?

Or vice versa...

2004.

It happens all the time.

You leftists claim that showing ID will disenfranchise voters, but you have no problem disenfranchising ALL the voters in 48 states, as long as it means power for your party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

uncensored, in case you haven't noticed I think of all the USMB wingnuts you are one of the wing nuttiest

Thanks, that is about the highest complement you could pay me.

and a total waste of space and therefor I very rarely acknowledge your presence.

But just for the hell of it I will explain to you that I am fine with the electoral college and wish for it to still be the way we elect a President.

Then your whining about 2000 is for what reason?

I am prefectly fine with the results of the 2000 election. Those are the rules of the game. Sometimes a candidate will get more votes but still be the loser. It happens and nothing is going to change it.

Your shameful party has made strides to end the EC. That would change it.

In regards to the Minnesota Senate election I feel the same way. The GOP had their recounts and their opportunity to make an appeal. They didn't and Coleman conceded. The election was legally certified and Franken was sent to the Senate. The rules that were in place were followed and Franken won the seat.

Which is fine, no one is calling for Franken to be ousted.

That doesn't mean that we should ignore the FACT that there was rampant fraud, though.

This gnashing over voter fraud that Daveman can't prove swung the election is nothing but partisan dribble from a drooling partisan.

It's quite telling that Daveman has picked this battle and chosen to attack "the left" for only caring when the Democrat wins but he can't even bring himself to say that when you look at the raw vote of the 2000 election the "true will" of the people was denied.

This is about fraud, not the "will of the people," whatever that's supposed to mean.

The reality is that Daveman's line of attack is just him projecting his own partisanship and motivation for making hay of this.

Nonsense. Dave is objecting to fraud.

 

[daveman]

Naw.

Sometimes you lose by a half a million votes but win. Thems the breaks but that was the rules and system in place. Ho hum.

And sometimes elections are really close.

The GOP dragged out the MN Senate election, had their recounts, and decided not to further appeal. Coleman conceded. Thems the breaks but that's rules and the way the system played out. Ho hum.

You taking the position that Democrats hate Democracy and the Dem winning is all that matters when all of this is pointed out to you is what makes you an ass and a hypocrite.

Your nothing but a hyper partisan toolbag, Daveman, that much is very obvious.

I'm sure I am,

Somewhere deep down, you know you are.

Boy, you don't even know what you think without some talking head handing you your opinion.

I can think for myself. Too bad not everyone can.

to one whose perception of reality is as fucked up as yours.

more like to people who have a lick of objectivity

There you go, redefining words. I wish leftists would stop doing that, but then they'd NEVER be able to claim to have won a debate.

The Democrat wins = free and fair election. (Just ignore all the convictions for voter fraud.)

The Democrat loses = STOLEN!! (Just ignore the Constitution.)

I get it.

Republican wins = thems the rules

Republican loses = the rules don't matter anymore

Still bitterly clinging to the ridiculous notion that the electoral college is worse than voter fraud, I see.

 

[daveman]

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

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

No, you''re supposed to condemn widespread vote fraud, that you idiots on the left either claim never happened, or never happened to sufficient extent to alter a national race.

You're supposed to oppose people being disenfranchised.

You're supposed to take the democratic process seriously.

But when the Democrat wins, none of that matters.

So you're saying that the most reprehensible thing to do would be to say 'you lost, get over it',

like we heard from CONSERVATIVES and REPUBLICANS approximately 2.6 zillion times after the 2000 Bush/Gore election?

When did you decide that your fellow conservatives were such scumbags in that regard? I don't recall ever seeing you mention that...

Because, you imbecile, there was no fraud in the 2000 election.

Bush won legally.

Meanwhile, despite all your posturing, you don't give a damn that Minnesotans were disenfranchised in the '08 Senate race.

Why?

Because the Democrat won.

 

[daveman]

The reality is that Daveman's line of attack is just him projecting his own partisanship and motivation for making hay of this.

Then you haven't been paying attention, kid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When's the last time a candidate lost California and New York and still won the presidency?

Or vice versa...

2004.

It happens all the time.

You leftists claim that showing ID will disenfranchise voters, but you have no problem disenfranchising ALL the voters in 48 states, as long as it means power for your party.

And who would have won that election if it were decided by the popular vote?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you''re supposed to condemn widespread vote fraud, that you idiots on the left either claim never happened, or never happened to sufficient extent to alter a national race.

You're supposed to oppose people being disenfranchised.

You're supposed to take the democratic process seriously.

But when the Democrat wins, none of that matters.

So you're saying that the most reprehensible thing to do would be to say 'you lost, get over it',

like we heard from CONSERVATIVES and REPUBLICANS approximately 2.6 zillion times after the 2000 Bush/Gore election?

When did you decide that your fellow conservatives were such scumbags in that regard? I don't recall ever seeing you mention that...

Because, you imbecile, there was no fraud in the 2000 election.

Bush won legally.

Meanwhile, despite all your posturing, you don't give a damn that Minnesotans were disenfranchised in the '08 Senate race.

Why?

Because the Democrat won.

Franken won legally.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Franken won legally.

I wouldn't go that far.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And who would have won that election if it were decided by the popular vote?

Bush. Though he won the EC in New York, the popular vote was fairly even.

That wasn't the question, though.