Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Franken Declared Winner by Minn SCFollow

#1 Jun 30 2009 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of a tight U.S. Senate race over Republican Norm Coleman, which should give Democrats the 60-seat majority they need to overcome procedural obstacles and push through their agenda.

Coleman has said in published reports he is unlikely to appeal the state court's decision to the federal courts. Under state law, the court's decision gives Franken the right to occupy the seat, which has been up for grabs since last November's election.

Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty has said he will certify the election winner based on what the state court decides.
Nice try though, GOP.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jun 30 2009 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Holy hell. How much of the taxpayers' money did that cost, in the end?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Jun 30 2009 at 11:01 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Awesome
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#4 Jun 30 2009 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Hah, I'd forgotten all about that mess. Well hopefully Franken doesn't ***** up now.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Jun 30 2009 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Holy hell. How much of the taxpayers' money did that cost, in the end?
I believe that Coleman is being made to foot the majority of the bill, including a substantial percentage of Franken's legal defense.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Jun 30 2009 at 12:09 PM Rating: Default
Elinda,

Quote:
Well hopefully Franken doesn't ***** up now.


lmao...

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/uploaded_images/franken-794120.bmp
#7 Jun 30 2009 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
I seem to remember reading one of his books once. I think it was pretty decent.
#8 Jun 30 2009 at 12:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
lmao...

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/uploaded_images/franken-794120.bmp
I know! And he STILL beat Coleman! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Jun 30 2009 at 12:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone scoffs at the idea of comedians as politicians. They fail to realize that comedians are the most observant of the entertainers; they are skilled at analyzing situations and picking out absurdities.

There's a reason that if Stephen Colbert had actually managed to run in his home state last year that he'd have garnered a few percentage points, and why a survey said that many people would have loved to have him as a president. It's the same reason a lot of people have started treating The Daily Show as an actual news show and not just a comedy show; sometimes Jon Stewart reports the news better than the serious news reporters!
#10 Jun 30 2009 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Annnnddddd...... Coleman concedes rather than try to go to the SCotUS.

I'm sure the unanimous ruling by the Minn. SC had something to do with that decision.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jun 30 2009 at 1:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho wrote:
There's a reason that if Stephen Colbert had actually managed to run in his home state last year that he'd have garnered a few percentage points, and why a survey said that many people would have loved to have him as a president. It's the same reason a lot of people have started treating The Daily Show as an actual news show and not just a comedy show; sometimes Jon Stewart reports the news better than the serious news reporters!


This depends entirely on what definition of "better" you're using... But otherwise I agree with you. People have unfortunately adopted the idea that casual and funny approaches to politics are somehow more legitimate than more serious approaches.


As to Franken. Not surprised. Remember. He got the lizard people vote!


And it helps that the whole Secretary of States Project was there and working for him... Cause if you can't win honestly, you should win by controlling the people who decide who wins. Lesson learned from their first attempt to steal an election and coming to fruition now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Jun 30 2009 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
And it helps that the whole Secretary of States Project was there and working for him... Cause if you can't win honestly, you should win by controlling the people who decide who wins. Lesson learned from their first attempt to steal an election and coming to fruition now.


Just want to make sure this is correct... you're saying a shady alliance of wealthy left wing billionaires bribed the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide that Franken won? As they were the people who just decided that he won.
#13 Jun 30 2009 at 1:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Just want to make sure this is correct... you're saying a shady alliance of wealthy left wing billionaires bribed the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide that Franken won? As they were the people who just decided that he won.


Nope. They put in place a Secretary of State who would ensure that in the case of a tight race, every "legal" mechanism possible would be used to ensure that a Democrat won. The Court can't overrule that because it can only look at the evidence in front of it. It's not that the Secretary engaged in fraud here. He just made determinations as to which votes would be recounted...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jun 30 2009 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah. Also the Sec of State in Florida totally stole the election for Bush!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Jun 30 2009 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Everyone is so corrupt in Gbaji's world. It makes me sad. Smiley: frown I wish there were nice people.

Edited, Jun 30th 2009 5:00pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#16 Jun 30 2009 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Nope. They put in place a Secretary of State who would ensure that in the case of a tight race, every "legal" mechanism possible would be used to ensure that a Democrat won. The Court can't overrule that because it can only look at the evidence in front of it. It's not that the Secretary engaged in fraud here. He just made determinations as to which votes would be recounted...


See this is the tactic that Ahmadinejad should have used, instead of stuffing the ballot boxes. Ahmadinejad made the mistake of making up numbers, getting caught making up numbers, and then having to delay the proceedings for a recount for a few weeks so he could get people to frantically write his name on a bunch of crisp unfolded ballots.
#17 Jun 30 2009 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not that the Secretary engaged in fraud here. He just made determinations as to which votes would be recounted...
Well, him, two Republican appointed judges, an Independence Party appointed judge and a nonpartisan elected judge did.

Sounds better if you say that the Sec. of State made all those decisions though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Jun 30 2009 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not that the Secretary engaged in fraud here. He just made determinations as to which votes would be recounted...
Well, him, two Republican appointed judges, an Independence Party appointed judge and a nonpartisan elected judge did.

Sounds better if you say that the Sec. of State made all those decisions though.
You forget that the all powerful liberal conspiracy really controls everything though. All those Judges were mere puppets.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#19 Jun 30 2009 at 5:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not that the Secretary engaged in fraud here. He just made determinations as to which votes would be recounted...
Well, him, two Republican appointed judges, an Independence Party appointed judge and a nonpartisan elected judge did.


You know darn well that the party of the nominating executive is irrelevant in terms of political leanings. Both Stevens and Souter were appointed by Republican Presidents, but no one, under any conditions would assume that means they are conservative leaning justices.ee

The more relevant fact is that in Minnesota, the state canvassing board is made up of the Secretary of State, two judges of the state supreme court, and two district court judges, all four of whom are picked by the Secretary.

So. One guy picks the other four.

Quote:
Sounds better if you say that the Sec. of State made all those decisions though.


He hand picked the board Joph. His own election to his position was heavily funded specifically to help ensure Democrat victories in tight races. Are we to assume that an organization dedicated to find people willing to manipulate exactly this sort of situation, selected Ritchie for that spot in Minnesota, got him elected, and then when it was his turn to pay off for them, he didn't pick members of the board he knew would let him manipulate the recount?


The events which occurred during this recount are suspicious all by themselves. Given the how and why of Ritchie's own election, it's well beyond that. This was a stolen election. Not just in word, but in actual fact. Everyone knows it, but since it was technically done within the letter of the law, no one can do anything about it. I suppose if you're ok with your party winning by manipulating the system instead of actually fielding the better candidate, then you can feel good about this.


I wouldn't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Jun 30 2009 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Both Stevens and Souter were appointed by Republican Presidents
So were Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas. Souter was selected because he was expected to be conservative. I don't recall Bush saying "Hey, let's get some more liberals on the bench" but I do recall a bunch of conservatives wailing "We thought he'd be more conservative!!"

So let's stop being so naive as to believe that the party of the appointing executive means nothing. Of course it does. I mean, unless you're trying to come up with some argument where the Republican appointed justices are in cahoots in some little conspiracy theory.
Quote:
Are we to assume that an organization dedicated to find people willing to manipulate exactly this sort of situation, selected Ritchie for that spot in Minnesota, got him elected, and then when it was his turn to pay off for them, he didn't pick members of the board he knew would let him manipulate the recount?
It was brilliant of them to make sure that Coleman would "win" by 215 votes, triggering an automatic recount so Ritchie could then gather his coterie of sympathetic Republican appointed justices and use them to steal the election for the Democrats. I mean, that takes some fucking amazing planning. And it's obviously a much more likely explanation than "After a proper recount, the vote total swung to the other guy by a couple hundred votes out of over 2.8 million."
Quote:
This was a stolen election. Not just in word, but in actual fact.
The victim complex of the average Republican never ceases to interest me. I mean, people talk about folks clinging on to Bush v Gore well after the fact but, man, everything with you is always that the Democrats wouldn't let the Republicans do this, or they stole that, or they must have tricked people into the other. I mean, always. You seem to have so much of yourself invested in how awesome and superior the GOP must be that any hint of its failings needs to be negated with "No! The Democrats somehow tainted my awesome with their foul trickery!"

No, everyone does not know that this was a "stolen" election. In fact, aside from some Republicans who are so obsessed and blinded by their partisan nature that they can't dream that, yeah, Franken got more votes, I doubt that many people believe it was a stolen election.

Sorry. Tell your party's candidate to try harder next time.

Edited, Jun 30th 2009 9:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 166 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (166)