definition of 'conservative' --- "Hey I got all my shit already so fuck you. I refuse to share, care or co operate with raising all of SOCIETY because I am too bust raising myself."
And every day that Senator Franken spends in Washington, kicking ass and taking names, he shows the whole world why the Republicans feared him so much.
If only all 58 alleged Democrats in the Senate had his sand.
Hearing the news of Franken winning took me back to the animosity generated from the last contested election, and my promise to rise above and congratulate Franken should he prevail....even if I did not like it.
So, Senator Franken, I say to you and your supporters....congratulations on winning the Senate Race. May you prove your critics wrong.
The republicans are really taking hypocrisy to new heights. Norm Coleman, John Ensign and now Mark Sanford....they had no problem whatsoever calling democrats to resign or concede but when it's their turn to resign or concede their very own hypocritical words somehow magically just don't apply to themselves. One by one these conservatives are dropping like flies. Their self-proclaimed stance on high morals is really biting them in the ass right now!
They have no shame. Being hypocrites is just in thier nature it seems. Republicans a pure politicians. They are just playing the game and the prize is always money and power. They are just posers and swindlers. They are like the televangelist who preach jesus until he is blue in the face and then spends donation money on hookers.
I see FOX fake news has labeled Al Franken a "comedian" a subtle way of degrading him compared to Coleman a senator.. a comedian isn't a high status social position.. he is more a political commentator
Norm Coleman must be a very sick and mentally disturbed human being to literally hold a senate seat hostage this long. Because of Coleman republicans probably won't be able to win a statewide election again in Minnesota for many many years.
Norm Coleman: The first American politician to lose two elections to celebrities that were far more qualified than he was.
Seriously, Norm is the biggest hypocrit ever. Anyone who knew his "political views" when he was a democrat mayor knows he's a sleazeball out for votes.
Wow.....what a fuckin' loser. I didn't even care about this election until I listened to Coleman, and the more and more I heard from him the happier I am Franken won. I wonder if he's started "the healing process yet" because it's "so important." And he's the douche that's dragging this out and tying up the 100th senate seat because his unrelenting ego has been damaged.
U tube " The Illuminati" and see who really runs the Governments of N and S America, the UK .
The powerful leaders of today are hybrids with serpent DNA. That in itself is ok but they are wicked ones who are going for "The New World Order," Not a good place to be in the future.
zappa2496, this is not "recount passover," and I'm not your student.
This issue has already been explained, in detail. But it sounds like you want to hear me articulate it in an attempt to "catch me" in a mistake, etc.
In the time frame you mention, the secretary of state's official count still showed Coleman ahead...I suspect you are alluding to the "claimed 40-some lead" by the Franken camp.
pacmantab....like a pacman, it eats without discrimination, garbage and all. if you buy that bs about clinton and his failing in stopping 9/11, then why did bush fail on the same level if that info was out there to prevent it? can't have it both ways! norm coleman is all about power of the party not of the people. he is at this point a traitor to his country! he is denying minnisotans proper representation. but isn't that the gop modus operandi " me, me, me and more me"
If I cannot have it both ways, you cannot either. Remember: The current deficit actually began during Clinton's final fiscal year....and yet all uniformed fingers are determined to point at Bush.
As for the current dispute....please.
Gore forced the 2000 election to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court and the left was all about making sure "the votes were counted."
Now its: "Conceed, conceed, conceed."
And if Al is "proper representation" I'd rather be stuck with Kloubachar!
You don't understand the term deficit. A deficit is the shortfall of revenue when compared to costs for a given fiscal year. A deficit does not continue for several years, the debt does. The nation was in debt at the end of the Carter administration, the debt ballooned under Reagan and GHW Bush, slowed down and then decreased under Clinton, and then exploded again under GW Bush. Why the increases during Republican administrations? Decreased tax rates and increased spending...
The problem with Republicans is that they want to spend as much as the Democrats do (not necessarily on the same things) and cut taxes at the same time. The result is a higher debt. Republicans pointed to the Laffer Curve to show that tax cuts would raise tax revenues, but this assumed that tax rates are to the right of the peak of the curve. The fact that tax revenues have not increased when taxes are cut indicate that we are on the left side, where higher revenues result from higher rates.
Gore did not force it to the Supreme Court. Gore wanted the Florida Supreme Court to make a decision (basically because his opponent's brother was the state's Governor and the woman in charge of the election was the head of Bush's Election Campaign in FL.). It was James Baker, brought in by daddy to take care of his little boy, who took it to the Supreme Court.
Back in Reaganomics. Remember that voodoo stuff? Back then, as my buddy, pacmantab, seems to forget is when the Congress was saying stuff like, "Reagan knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace." So, THANK GOD FRANKEN IS NO REAGAN. We don't need another trainwreck onto of the economic disgrace Bush left of this nation. My god, let's not try to make this a 3rd world nation, pacmantab!
Right...you don't want this to become a 3rd world nation, you want it to become a socalist nation, right? Spread the wealth and all? Sounds somewhat like class envy to me.
I'm sorry, but the last time we elected a celebrity-turned-politician here in Minnesota we got burned (Remember Govenor Ventura?). Now we have the very real chance of having Suart Smalley as a Senator....don't really like the odds of our economy rebounding anytime soon with him....
Can you smell the hypocrisy? Colman says if he was losing he would step away for the good of the state, now that he is losing he files a suit! Guy is liar!
Song476 ... You have a Filthy Mouth ! But you're a Liberal and venom is what you speak! Typical liberal fascist trying to steal another election, like in Washington in 2004, and the presidential election in 2000. Liberal Democrats have no values or standards; they make them up as they go. Conservatives have standards and values (Not saying they always act on them) but most use the Holy Bible as a standard! Whereas Liberals use Relativism!
Fascinating. Your response to perceived value-free "filth" is to cast stones at another imperfect person. Since you reference the Bible, perhaps you should go back to it and read what Jesus says about what you are doing. :)
AnarKitty..You make accusations and then you don't explain what I said to another "Imperfect Person"! And what am I doing that is, as a Christian, Sin? Are you referring to "Judging? What is it with you liberals speaking against judging and then Judging Christians as if they are perfect! There are levels of maturity in Christianity. Some people have been Christians for 20 years and are still Baby's in Christ! Some only a year and more mature! So what are you getting at? And what would Jesus do?
Actually, RU, I was responding to the seemingly random cascade of name-calling, blind judgment and generic bigotry aimed at people you don't know in your post, which is rather out of character for someone holding forth Christianity as a standard.
You don't know that I or Song or anyone else here ISN'T Christian, or ARE liberal in thought, or anything else unless they have so stated. Particularly in the case of being Christian, in which case only that person and God would know, correct?
You want to talk about someone refusing to heed their own words when put to the test? In the very article you reference, Franken says: "Let me be clear: Our goal is to ensure that every vote is properly counted," but instead of allow the election contest to takes its full course, which is not Colemans pattern but his right, he had attempted MORE THAN ONCE to curtail itnot only all but demanding that he be seated now, but has gone so far as to (cont)
motion to dismiss the trial. And there is no honorable way to spin that, either.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
As much as you hate Coleman, your painting him as the bad guy is blantantly out of turn. Dont tell me you actually buy the rant from all those political ads (on either side)?!?
The simply truth is this: Coleman is an accomplished public servant with many solid years of experiencewhether you wish to accept it or not. (cont)
And any allegations of corruption, etc. are just thatallegations which without proof is meaningless.
Conversely, Al Franken is a has-been comedian who suddenly thought it a good idea to run for public office. Jesse Ventura had us believingand he flushed his opportunity down the toilet. With our state and country at such a critical crossroads, its only logical to prefer experience over inexperience.
Unfortunately, the Psychotic-MoreWar-Bushies had the job for 8 years, and screwed this nation so bad, she's on her back with a trainwreck for an economy, trillion dollar deficits, doubled national debt, 2 failed wars, a broken military, millions unemployed, stock market ruin, and the desecration of the American dream. Bush and the GOP shit on us, and are now laughing. They want more tax cuts for the rich AIG CEOs. I say, screw you. Coleman lost. Be a man. Get off the pot, you crone. Indeed.
Lastly, pacmantab has no clue, when he pretends to know Franken. Ha. What a moron. Franken was involved in politics for years. He's a brilliant man, and just so happens to also be a comedian. A pretty successful one at that. Air America Radio. If you had just the time to listen to Al for five minutes you'd know. Of course, Reagan was JUST an actor? Stupid Then by your definition, Reagan should never have gotten into politics, ran for governor, etc. Pacman, you're arguments are pathetic. Really.
Wow. Been awhile since someone used the Straw Man on me.
To suggest Franken is on the same level as Reagan ever was is laughable. This run for Senate is the FIRST attempt to gain public office on ANY LEVEL for Franken. Reagan had already served as Govenor of California for more than one term before seeking his first national public post (president). I won't even get into his expansive political background prior to his gubernatorial terms (cont)
And, like the last administration, Reagan faced many difficult, unprecedented challenges. Times have become difficult, yes....but that is when you need experience the most....not change for change's sake.
On that note, Franken has hosted on Air America for what....five years? You call THAT being "involved in politics for years??" Really? (cont)
Norm Coleman served as mayor of Saint Paul before trying to take the next step. And has one successful term as Senator.
Listen to Franken for five minutes?? I do not require one. He is the political equivalent to Howard Stern for crying out loud. Should he come out the winner of this election, he will enter with no real experience, no real plan and no real concept of what he's getting into.
For those who bought the whole "change" mantra: Be careful what you wish for
Wow. Really amazing that pacmantab would praise the man who TRIPLED the US national debt, and who, by financial experts said that when Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation, but by the time he left the presidency, we were the world's largest debtor nation. So these REPUBLICANS still fail to get it. They failed at protecting us on 9/11, eight months into their admin, and now, they fail our economy, AGAIN. Oh, but let's listen to their bozo advice? Ha.
Well, you can essentially make anyone say anything when you take stuff out of context.
Whos to say Norm wasn't saying he'd "step back" from getting involved in the recount process versus letting them do their jobs. Instead, Franken gets to have it both ways and forces Coleman's hand....to make HIM look like the hypocrite.
I say let's have a run-off and put ALL this B.S. to rest. The waters are far too muddied up to really see a clear winner at this point.
interesting how you only say you want a runnoff when coleman asks for a new election. First of all, I think its very obvious at this point and second Al Franken would win the runoff by a lot due to norm's behaivior and scandals with the credit card numbers of the donors. Coleman needs to learn to stop trying to fight a lost cause.
Truth be told, I've been talking about doing a run-off for awhile now.
And I actually agree with you on the point that Franken would probably win a runoff...especially considering that Franken's recount ploy worked like a charm.
Sooo...if Franken would win a run-off as you profess, then let's do it....what exactly would be the harm if you're so sure?? This way the loser loses with no excuses.
Id be very happy if they did a run, but even though Franken would win the runoff possibly by double digits, Coleman would find something else to bitch and moan about and claim the whole thing was fraud and that votes were double counted again and try to contest the thing no matter what happened
Come on, cooldawg888, I think you're being a little disingenious at this point. If they did a runoff, it would wipe the slate clean. Plus, if the margin of victory WERE double-digits, then the loser would have no recourse. Game over at that point.
Let me put it this way...if the situation were reversed right now, Franken is not trying to ensure everything is on the up and up??
Its not about partisan politics...its about doing the right thing...AND doing the thing right.
fine then do a runoff, if you honestly think that would shut coleman up, but im telling you it wouldnt. He'd probably pull the same thing that Woody Jenkins pulled in 1996 when he lost to Landrieu. But its a moot point, since the senate is unlikely to grant. So keep running your mouth, I give up on arguing with you and your crap.
It wasn't "Franken's recount ploy". The recount was state-mandated according to Minnesota law. Franken didn't call for it. If he had won on Nov. 4th by the same margin as Coleman, we would still have had the recount.
My apologies, tgear77, "Franken's recount ploy" was not the best choice of words. Let me reiterate what happened:
Had the recount actually been a true recount (re-count the ballots AND ONLY THE BALLOTS that were counted initially) then Coleman would have still had a slight lead....which would have forced Franken to either concede or challenge.
BUT....Franken's camp got ADDITIONAL, theretofore uncounted ballots into the recount....unfairly forcing Coleman's to challenge first.
Yes, Franken asked for 400 Absentee Ballots that had been rejected to be recounted. The Board overseeing the recount agreed that there was cause for that to happen. Given that on Election Day Coleman had a lead of over 500 votes and he is now lost by 250 votes, that is a swing of 750 votes. Even if Franken got all 400 of the absentee ballots (doubtful), he still picked up 350 other votes along the way. Coleman lost. He should give up. But he won't b/c he's a narcissistic prick.
Er, no...that's not entirely true. The board actually rejected the request initially but the issue was pushed to the state supreme court who eventually allowed it.
My point is this: Why did said ballots HAVE to be added so soon? The Franken camp would have been able to ask for their inclusion in court....AFTER the recount.
And now, after Al got to have it both ways, he has attempted several times to get seated...BEFORE this matter is resolved. Not the actions of a clear-cut winner....
Well, since he is the clear cut winner, then I suppose that these are the actions of a clear-cut winner. There is nothing wrong with him trying to be seated since Minnesota has a right to have two Senators while Congress is in session. And how is that any different from Coleman actually trying to go to Washington before the process was even completed? They had to bar him from his former offices.
You cannot show conclusively yet that anyone is the "clear cut winner." No one can. Did you know the Franken camp tried to have this election contest dismissed as well? If they are the so "clear cut," what are they afraid of?
And, for the record, Coleman had to shut down his former offices because his term had expired...not because they had to "bar him" for "going to Washington."
I should not have to to do your work for you - get your facts and numbers straight on your own.
Coleman sent staff members to D.C. in early Jan. assuming that he would just continue operating as the Senator from Minnesota. The Congressional Officers had to bar his staff from going back to their office and inform Coleman that he could not take part in Congressional business until he was declared a Senator. Get your own facts straight and stop swallowing the Coleman line.
Stop swallowing the Coleman line?! And I suppose I should START swallowing YOUR lines....like this imaginary 750-vote swing of yours that would make this trial moot? Too bad said swing is pure fiction, 'ol "get your own facts straight!"
And I note that you failed to add that, on Jan 15th, Democratic and Republican leaders unanimously agreed Thursday to reopen Norm Coleman's U.S. Senate offices until Feb. 4 to archive and transfer case files on constituent services.
So it wasn't a matter of Coleman trying to continue as a Senator, it was to ensure outstanding constituent requests, etc. were properly archived/transferred....like any responsible public servant would.
Coleman is not nearly as bad as you want him to be....
I'm sorry, but if you believe that Coleman was going to Washington out of concern for his fellow Minnesotans, then you are too far gone to debate. Coleman has shown nothing but contempt for this whole process and is now threatening to tie up the Senatorial seating for years. He only goes onto Conservative programs like Lars Larson and Sean Hannity so he can go on about how the election was stolen from him. Yet here he is in this video saying that "if it was me..." he'd step aside. Well, do it!
Debate?! Usually debates are conducted with facts, not fiction.
So if this situation were reversed, you would be berating Franken just as fiercely about "tying up the seating for years," right? Right.
And I don't see Franken rushing to be interviewed by O'Riley or Fox News, either.
BTW, the quote in this video is likely taken out of context. By "stepping back," Coleman might have meant from the recount process and letting them do their jobs versus sneaking in ballots prematurely...
First off, you assume that Franken would drag this all the way to the Supreme Court like Coleman is threatening. Maybe he wouldn't, we don't know. Second, i'm not saying that Coleman should go on Countdown or Hardball (although I would love to see it), but if he was not the partisan toady he is, he would go on the major news channels or Meet the Press or even 60 Minutes. But he won't, because they won't kiss his ass. Really now, do you think O'Reilly would have Franken on?
(cont).. The quote is not taken out of context. I saw the press conference back in November. He said what he meant, that he thought Franken should just give up and forego the recount. No tricky editing, nothing but Coleman hoisting himself on his own petard. Obviously you hate Franken and think Coleman is wonderful, so I know nothing I say will change your mind. But Coleman deserves to lose. He should just take his ball and go home.
I guess the memory of the last washed-up B-List celebrity we elected to public office is still all-too-fresh in my mind. Remember how wonderful THAT turned out??
It's not that Franken had no right to dispute certain ballots, he just put the carriage in front of the horse is all....and that made Coleman look like the one "dragging this on and on" out of turn.
But, like it or not, Coleman has rights....and your calling for him to "step back" right here and now doesn't change that. Sorry...
You mean Ronald Reagan? The hero of the GOP! Yeah, wasn't he a wonder!
Hey, I wish he would "step back", but I didn't call for it. Just watch the video and see Norm himself say that he would do so. But he's a Republican so he must be lying since his lips are moving.
Last I checked, we were talking about Minnesota. Are you even paying attention to the "debate" anymore??
Even IF the quote as reported in this video is "100% correct," then that would mean Coleman would "step back" from a recount....we're not in the recount phase anymore.
You profess that you didn't call for him to "step back??" Then what did you mean by "He should just take his ball and go home."
Oh, sorry, you meant Jesse Ventura? Have to admit I didn't get the reference since I'm not a wrestling fan. When you say celebrity, my mind doesn't go to washed up wrestlers.
No, on Nov. 5th, I didn't call for him to "step back". He did. It's right there in the video. Coleman responding to the question and saying "If it were me...". Well, now it is you, Norm. The mandatory part of the process is over and you lost. All further appeals and delays are Coleman's personal choice. So the man who said "If it were me..." has now shown himself to be a liar. Coleman wanted Franken to concede, but he is to shallow and selfserving to do so himself. How can you defend such a liar
Franken did not have to rush like he did to get disputed ballots counted....he could have, and per the initial board decision should have, waited until after the mandatory recount. That would have shown, per the CORRECT math (not your "fuzzy" math) that Coleman would have still led....forcing Franken to either concede or challenge.
Unfortunately, Franken's camp managed to have it both ways....flip-flopping the lead and making Coleman look like a hypocrite in being forced to challenge due to the fact that not ALL disputed ballots were considered at that time....again putting his constiuents above himself.
Let's be clear...it could very well come to pass that Franken won...but he chose not to "step back" and got involved in the recount.(cont)
(cont from last): which, I must admit, turned out to be a great ploy....as it makes Coleman look like a "liar" out of turn....especially in the eyes of close-minded liberals....
Love the way you're backing off from your quote: "Hey, I wish he would 'step back'." Of course you wouldn't have wanted the one trailing to "step back" on Nov. 5th....but now you want it to happen at all speed, don't you?
And so does Franken (i.e., his attempted motion to dimiss the contest before its done)..Hmmm
Are you related to Coleman? Is that why you defend him so? According to the Star Tribune on Nov. 6th, "Coleman urged Franken to waive his right to a recount, saying the prospect of changing the outcome was remote". There is another video there of him saying "I would step back" in order to allow Minnesota to move forward. Well, he has had enough time to show that he is a man of his word and yet he has yet to step aside. There is no honorable way to spin that. In his own words he said that he...
(cont) ..would step aside so that Minnesota could have two Senators serving, yet when put to the test, he refuses. And now he's going the legal route, which is his pattern. He filed a lawsuit against Humphrey in the '98 gubernatorial race; filed two separate ones against Wellstone in 2002, and has already filed a defamation suit against Franken that was thrown out. His lawyers played fast and loose during the recount and were charged with contempt. As much as you hate Franken, stop painting ...
(cont) Norm as the good guy here. He is a corrupt politician who can't bear the thought of losing his gravy train. He will fight and fight despite his promise to step aside. And when he finally loses, he will go on Fox and blame the dreaded liberal media.
I'm sure we all expect Norm to give up the lawsuit since the recount is finished. And as we saw from this clip, by the way he so genuinely touches his heart, he wants to unvoid dragging this thing out beyond reason.
1) Franken supporters brand Coleman a hypocrite, when it was the Franken campaign who pushed for rejected ballots to be considered in the first place. Demand that Franken be "seated ASAP"
2) Someone comes along and make a point that runs counter to the above.
3) Folks from #1 engage in character assasination of the person from #2 out of turn. In addition, they start to make disparaging jokes about Coleman, etc.
I have to say that when Pacmantab says the term "40-odd" rather than just 49 votes, he sounds like a complete dumbass. In addition, any more ballots to be counted will still show Franken leading, its time Franken be seated. End of story
Yes! The best part is that BOTH campaigns have more absentee ballots that they wanted counted. Coleman is just being a baby because he's on the losing side. This is why the senate rules that BOTH campaigns must agree which ballots were wrongly rejected....so one of the campaigns doesn't pull last minute desperate attempts to make up "wrongly rejected votes."
If anyone wants to find out how to know one hundred percent for sure that if you were to die today you would go to heaven, go ahead and click on my channel link and I have a detailed explanation written there.
Norm Coleman is being such an asshole keeping Al Franken from starting his term in the senate. Concede you sore hypocrite, criminal, loser, the country needs to start the healing process from your bullshit!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The so-called "recount" was nothing of the kind. A recount should have simply "RECOUNTED" the ballots that were counted the first time.
THEN...if the numbers still had Coleman on top, motions could have been made to look at ALL disputed ballots...not just 900+ ballots cherry-picked from certain areas.
The way this was done forced the Coleman campaign's hand when Franken should have been the one contesting....making Norm look like the hypocrite.
The correct numbers will come out...and show that Coleman lost. Nobody "made" Coleman look like a hypocrite, he did it to himself by making that pompous, moronic statement and then not following through when the numbers went Franken's way. Give me a f*cking break!
No...YOU give ME a break! The recount should have been just that: A recount of the SAME ballots that were counted before. NOT the same ballots...PLUS select ballots that just happened to favor one canidate over the other.
The only way the correct numbers will come out is if ALL improperly rejected ballots are included...which is why Coleman is challenging. (cont).
(cont from last): But the thing you are glossing over is that Franken was the first to bring up rejected ballots...during the recount. That issue could/should have waited until AFTER the recount. Franken got his way tho, which forced Coleman to APPEAR as if he was the one "not following through."
And now Franken and his allies want him seated ASAP. I'm sure they do...because they are afraid of what a lawsuit might uncover...?
I can accept Coleman losing...but only if he TRULY lost.
ur an idiot, the actual recount uncovered that Coleman lost buy 49 and the absentee ballots made that loss greater. The only person who tried to stop vote from being counted was NORM COLEMAN. He is a disgusting piece of filth. Every ballot was counted by hand in front of the camera making it impossible for any votes to be surpressed. The most accurate count shows Franken ahead meaning FRANKEN WON, all you Republicans are typical! Go back to playing Pacman Pacmantab!
That 40-odd lead by Franken was an estimate from the Franken campaign itself...and MIGHT have resulted from double-counting certain ballots...another wrinkle we need to investigate.
The other thing you are mistaken about is the fact that Minnesota law dictates that a vote this close HAS to have a recount. Neither candidate could have stopped the recount if they tried.
I actually come from a bipartisan household and we voted not on party lines, but whom we felt could do the job.
you sound like Elisabeth Hasselback on the view, never willing to admit the Republican are wrong! Have fun spewing your republican crap all over the place, while Norm Coleman ends up in jail!
The recount should have simply done the RECOUNT OF THE BALLOTS COUNTED THE FIRST TIME.
That would have resulted in Coleman still being ahead. THEN Franken could have (which would have been his right) to challenge whether disputed ballots should be added to the count.
The so-called "flip flop" you allude to was only due to Franken being allowed to have it both ways.
As for the disputed ballots...ALL of them (including 600+ not yet in) should be in.
what evidence is there that Norm actually won? your comments dont make sense, even when the recount was done without the rejected absentee ballots, Al Franken was still ahead by 49 votes. You make no sense at all. Norm Coleman needs to concede so we can move on.
You are incorrect. That 40-odd lead for Franken did not materialize until the disputed ballots began to be added...and was initially reported per an estimate provided by the Franken campaign itself.
I'm all about doing the right thing...regardless of how it turns out. But we have to ensure that the THING is done RIGHT.
ummm sorry ur still not making any sense except your trying to sound smarter by saying terms like "40 odd", those disputed ballots were decided by an impartial election board like the law says. Sorry that the Franken campaign happened to be accurate in their estimate as was Nate Silver, and the Associated Press. You still make no sense in your argument what so ever. So once again, how where things not done right in this recount????? keep trying
Well, I actually read up on what has been going on. It really doesn't matter what you say, what the AP says, or whatever. The fact of the matter is that Franken did not have the lead until AFTER the disputes ballots started getting added. That's irrefutable...so you can say whatever you want.
If ALL ballots are considered (and they have yet to be despite any insistence to the contrary) and Franken still comes out ahead, I will accept that...but NOT before...
What's wrong with counting disputed ballots? The canvassing board has the authority so why shouldn't they? SOMEONE will have to count the disputed ballots. How are you so positive that the courts would do a better job?
I will answer your question WITH a question: If you're so certain the recount was so accurate, why not take the time to silence the critics (myself included), let the courts have a look and put all the B.S. to rest?
Instead I keep hearing "seat Franken now...seat him now!"
Kind of reminds me of an NFL team who knows they just got away with a bad call and are rushing to snap the ball before a challenge flag is thrown....
I didn't say seat him now. I was trying to wait it out and silence the critics that way, but the critics keep speaking up BEFORE the process is done!! I'm glad you have seen the light.
First of all, Im sure everyone is sick of PACMANTAB sounding like Elisabeth Hasselback. Second, in 1997, Mary Landreiu was provisionally seated even in January even though she wasn't certified the winner of the runnoff until October. Their allowing Burris to be seated which is outrageous. Let Franken be seated while this is being disputed since Coleman is determined to drag this thing out for months.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
cooldawg888, Mary Landreiu is a Louisiana Senator...so her case has nothing to do with this issue. The issue surround Burris aside, he finally got an election certificate...which is why he was seated...something Franken has yet to obtain.
BTW, resorting to insults and mudslinging out of turn is usually the first sign that someone realizes they have no standing in an argument. Just saying....
first of all you completely misunderstood what I said. Mary Landreiu did NOT have an election certificate until around 11 months after she won the runoff in 1996 and she was still seated. Second you have a lot of nerve to say my argument has no standing when AL FRANKEN IS THE ONE WHO IS AHEAD!
No, I actually DO understand what you said...and my argument still holds. She is from another state...which means her case has NO...BEAR-ing on this one.
Second, you are right: Al Franken is ahead....for now.
Again, what is the rush? Sen. Klobuchar herself said having an empty seat for now will not case any issues in the short term.
So let's allow this election contest to run its proper course.
That way if Coleman still comes out on the short end, it is with no doubt...or excuses.
Guess what Franken is being seating while these stupid lawsuits are in process. Thank you Harry Reid, they are doing the same thing that they did for Mary Landreiu. Hello senator Franken.
Reid's exact words were: "We're going to try to seat Al Franken,"
Again, my friend, why are you in such a rush? You're like a football team trying to get the next snap off before a challenge is called because they know they got away with something....
The farce is with you, Al Franken....but you're not a Senator yet.
And I don't know how to make this any plainer: Sen. Landreiu's case has NO BEARING here. NONE!
"So let's allow this election contest to run its proper course."
The recount was the "proper course" and now Norman is taking it to the courts because he doesnt like the official results. Why doesnt he take his own advice and concede?
kubush, I must assume you didn't read my earlier posts. If you had you'd know that the "recount" wasn't exactly a recount in the pure sense.
Let it suffice to say that Franken got over....forcing Coleman's hand when it should have been Franken being forced to file the contest. Coleman may appear to be hypocritical at this point, but only to the untrained eye.
Actually, ours is a bipartisan household...and we all voted for Coleman because he is the most qualified. That pretty much goes without saying.
BTW, I'm glad you think the possibility of hundreds, if not thousands, of voters being disenfranchised funny....turning to inappropriate humor must be a liberal trait...;-)
Im sick of hearing how bipartisan you are. The truth is that you are a conservative and you sound just like Elisabeth Hasselback. Franken got more votes and Coleman lost because he a corrupt senator who only cares for serving himself and the special interests. Just look at the new job he took. Its a statement saying he knows he lost!
actually i dont. Your and her view are very similar since you both claim that you come from bi-partisan household and then show ultra-conservative view. In addition, both you and her sound like morons. Anyone who would vote for an extremely conservative and corrupt senator like Coleman is not bipartisan at all.
Nice of you to tell me what I am laughing at. Typical of conservatives. I was laughing at Coleman's and your hypocrisy. Not at the disenfranchisment of any votes.
Actually, in Minnesota law, the court is part of the recount process. It's purpose is to resolve any issues that were not addressed in the recount, which is what Coleman is trying to do.
Now you are changing your argument. At first you said that Franken was only in the lead after the disputed absentee ballot stage. Now your argument is that the lead occurred after the disputed ballot stage. These are two different stages. The latter is part of the official recount, where votes that were counted during election day were challenged by both sides. The former occurred after the recount phase, looking for improperly rejected absentee ballots....
After both of the disputed ballots stage (which is what would be the end of what you would describe as the recount stage) and the disputed absentee ballot stage, Franken had the lead.
You must have me confused with someone else. I have yet to change my argument (flip-flopping is what the left tends to do...LOL).
The canvassing board initially denied FRANKEN'S call to add disputed ballots during the recount. But that issue was taken to the state supreme court and was allowed..forcing Coleman to look like a hypocrite.
If the disputed ballots "stage" is part of the recount, WHY would the board say to wait until after the recount??
Okay, let me use the terminology used by the election board, the challenge phase was part of the recount. It was at the end of this phase that Franken took his first lead. As you defined the recount earlier, the challenge phase would count as part of the recount because it was counting votes that were counted on election day. They were removed from the count because one or both campaigns challenged the ballots. These are not the disputed absentee ballots as you claim...
Your claim that the disputed absentee ballots were what gave Franken the lead is incorrect. The decision was handed down a day before the end of the recount of votes in the challenge phase, but counting of the ballots in question didn't occur until nearly three weeks later. There is a time line at the Star Tribune that shows the exact order as I have here.
To make it easier to look up, type in "Minnesota time line Star Tribune" in Google and it should be the first site on the list. Now I challenge you to show evidence for your version of the time line, that is inline with your definition of the recount with the fact that by your definition, the Challenge Phase is part of the recount as I mentioned before. Conversely, you could argue that the Challenge Phase is not part of the recount, but it would require changing your definition of recount.
No, no, no. I NEVER said...and NEVER HAVE SAID...that the challenge phase was part of the recount. When you start putting words in my mouth to bolster your own argument, that's when I will "step back" and leave you to your coping mechanisms....
And you keep glossing over the fact that the board rejected the challenge, but the state supreme court was called in....any guess as by whom??
Finally, the Strib as a reliable news source? A.k.a. "Liberal Central?" Please....
"The so-called "recount" was nothing of the kind. A recount should have simply "RECOUNTED" the ballots that were counted the first time."
Look familiar. It should, since it is something you wrote on here. The challenge phase was reviewing votes that were counted the first time that were later challenged by one or both of the two campaigns. By your very words, then the challenge phase was part of the recount. It was at the end of this phase that Franken gained his first lead...
The quote says that those votes that were counted the first time were the only one that should have counted in the recount. The Challenge Phase ballots that gave Franken the lead in mid-December were ballots that were counted the first time that were later separated from other ballots due to a challenge by one or both campaigns. Put the two together and the Challenge Phase was part of what you described as the recount...
One other thing, it's not worth tying to appeal to others about what I am or am not reading into your statement, as it is likely that we have managed to scare everyone else off of this thread.
I guess I don't get why Franken was allowed to have the board look at absentee ballots during the recount, but Coleman was told that he had to wait, saying he could bring it up in an election contest if need be.
You're right, we probably HAVE scared everyone else off this thread. In any event, it sounds like Coleman might take it to Federal court anyway....so the saga continues....
Your second point makes it obvious that you still either don't get that the challenge phase and the count of rejected absentee ballots were two separate events or you won't admit to it since it counters your point. Will you at least admit that the "challenge" that you are talking about is separate than the challenged ballot phase which has always been part of recount?
And you STILL ignore the fact that the canvassing board, who RAN the RECOUNT....initially denied the challenge...but the state supreme court then intervened.
I'll admit to that if you admit that the stage that gave Franken the lead was before the ballots that the state supreme court said to count were even counted in January, as the evidence that I have pointed to has shown.
Finally, I'll give you a conservative source that will back up the time line of the Strib. First, search "December 18 Franken" in Google and look for the Human Events entry. That will confirm, if you read the article, that:
1. Franken was leading at the end of December when the challenge phase ended
2. That the ballots affected by the case you keep mentioning were not counted until early January.
Therefore, those ballots only added to Franken's lead, not gave him his initial lead.
Let me say something here: It may very well be that Franken won. The only point I have issue with was Franken got to have it both ways DURING the recount when he should have waited until its end. THEN he could have contested the election (as he should have had to do). All else being equal, we may be at this exact same position.
But, since the carriage was put in front of the horse, if you will, Coleman was forced to contest it...(cont)
(cont from last): And most are forgetting that its not just about disenfranchised voters whose votes did not count but should have, its also about those counted, but now have been offset by only a "subset" of added ballots - out of many thousands that should be considered....
To say nothing of what this will do for Coleman's career...had Albeen forced to contest as he should have, Coleman might have another chance to run again...curtailed now by his being branded a sore loser out of turn.
While there has been a allegation of added votes, every step of the way the allegation has been ruled without merit because no evidence was presented. If there was such evidence, don't you think that Coleman would be advertising it everywhere. Instead, there is only the allegation, which is a long way from proof.
The disenfranchised voters have had their ballots examined several times now. Guidance by state bodies have been given, ballots analyzed by justices...
... The number of disenfranchised votes that may have the standing to be counted are now down to a handful. The latest batch that was allowed to be examined again didn't have 100% of the ballots meet standards set to allow counting.
As for Coleman's career, I can't say I feel sorry for him. He set himself up for this with his remarks before, during, and after the recount. Even if he didn't mean them as said, he is a politician that should have been more aware of his statements affect on PR.
Not really to germane to the other comments but Norm Coleman's lawyer is my former teamate from my swimming team's dad. I don't like coleman but anybody would try to keep going with such a small number of votes deciding the winner.
oh sweet, sweet, irony. asking al franken to concede the election before the manditory recount that franken couldn't have even stopped if he had wanted to. now that the recount shows franken to be the winner, is he stepping down gracefully to help the healing process? nope, taking every legal recourse allowed. have fun with your political suicide jackass.
definition of 'conservative' --- "Hey I got all my shit already so fuck you. I refuse to share, care or co operate with raising all of SOCIETY because I am too bust raising myself."
SmileyGarrish 8 months ago
"I would step back"
Who's stopping you?
newdimensionfilms 1 year ago
Norm Coleman got a spanking and a buttfuk by Mr. George Galloway.
Look it up, this weasel is a a pathetic, lying, hypocritical piece of shit!
Plus he is a big pussy and Dumber than a rock!
MACKATTACK1970 1 year ago
Comment removed
hevblade 1 year ago
@hevblade Enjoy hell.
NYerintransit 1 year ago
And every day that Senator Franken spends in Washington, kicking ass and taking names, he shows the whole world why the Republicans feared him so much.
If only all 58 alleged Democrats in the Senate had his sand.
doctorpsycho1960 1 year ago
Minnesota is lucky to have Franken as a senator!
cooldawg888 2 years ago 3
nah-nah-nah-nah,
nah-nah-nah-nah,
hey-hey-hey,
good bye!
tarokka 2 years ago 3
Hearing the news of Franken winning took me back to the animosity generated from the last contested election, and my promise to rise above and congratulate Franken should he prevail....even if I did not like it.
So, Senator Franken, I say to you and your supporters....congratulations on winning the Senate Race. May you prove your critics wrong.
pacmantab 2 years ago
Bye bye Norm
modernecon 2 years ago
Good Riddance.
darsh5k 2 years ago
The republicans are really taking hypocrisy to new heights. Norm Coleman, John Ensign and now Mark Sanford....they had no problem whatsoever calling democrats to resign or concede but when it's their turn to resign or concede their very own hypocritical words somehow magically just don't apply to themselves. One by one these conservatives are dropping like flies. Their self-proclaimed stance on high morals is really biting them in the ass right now!
guyinsf 2 years ago 5
And Larry Craig as several others..
classicallady 2 years ago
They have no shame. Being hypocrites is just in thier nature it seems. Republicans a pure politicians. They are just playing the game and the prize is always money and power. They are just posers and swindlers. They are like the televangelist who preach jesus until he is blue in the face and then spends donation money on hookers.
jspro100 2 years ago
I see FOX fake news has labeled Al Franken a "comedian" a subtle way of degrading him compared to Coleman a senator.. a comedian isn't a high status social position.. he is more a political commentator
victor2cutube 2 years ago
Norm Coleman must be a very sick and mentally disturbed human being to literally hold a senate seat hostage this long. Because of Coleman republicans probably won't be able to win a statewide election again in Minnesota for many many years.
cooldawg888 2 years ago
Norm Coleman: The first American politician to lose two elections to celebrities that were far more qualified than he was.
Seriously, Norm is the biggest hypocrit ever. Anyone who knew his "political views" when he was a democrat mayor knows he's a sleazeball out for votes.
PuudaMaggui 2 years ago 2
Wow.....what a fuckin' loser. I didn't even care about this election until I listened to Coleman, and the more and more I heard from him the happier I am Franken won. I wonder if he's started "the healing process yet" because it's "so important." And he's the douche that's dragging this out and tying up the 100th senate seat because his unrelenting ego has been damaged.
Shup2the 2 years ago 2
U tube " The Illuminati" and see who really runs the Governments of N and S America, the UK .
The powerful leaders of today are hybrids with serpent DNA. That in itself is ok but they are wicked ones who are going for "The New World Order," Not a good place to be in the future.
mysticmeg111 2 years ago
zappa2496, this is not "recount passover," and I'm not your student.
This issue has already been explained, in detail. But it sounds like you want to hear me articulate it in an attempt to "catch me" in a mistake, etc.
In the time frame you mention, the secretary of state's official count still showed Coleman ahead...I suspect you are alluding to the "claimed 40-some lead" by the Franken camp.
pacmantab 2 years ago
pacmantab....like a pacman, it eats without discrimination, garbage and all. if you buy that bs about clinton and his failing in stopping 9/11, then why did bush fail on the same level if that info was out there to prevent it? can't have it both ways! norm coleman is all about power of the party not of the people. he is at this point a traitor to his country! he is denying minnisotans proper representation. but isn't that the gop modus operandi " me, me, me and more me"
Mutedvox 2 years ago
If I cannot have it both ways, you cannot either. Remember: The current deficit actually began during Clinton's final fiscal year....and yet all uniformed fingers are determined to point at Bush.
As for the current dispute....please.
Gore forced the 2000 election to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court and the left was all about making sure "the votes were counted."
Now its: "Conceed, conceed, conceed."
And if Al is "proper representation" I'd rather be stuck with Kloubachar!
pacmantab 2 years ago
s/b: "...and yet all uninformed fingers..."
pacmantab 2 years ago
You don't understand the term deficit. A deficit is the shortfall of revenue when compared to costs for a given fiscal year. A deficit does not continue for several years, the debt does. The nation was in debt at the end of the Carter administration, the debt ballooned under Reagan and GHW Bush, slowed down and then decreased under Clinton, and then exploded again under GW Bush. Why the increases during Republican administrations? Decreased tax rates and increased spending...
zappa2496 2 years ago
The problem with Republicans is that they want to spend as much as the Democrats do (not necessarily on the same things) and cut taxes at the same time. The result is a higher debt. Republicans pointed to the Laffer Curve to show that tax cuts would raise tax revenues, but this assumed that tax rates are to the right of the peak of the curve. The fact that tax revenues have not increased when taxes are cut indicate that we are on the left side, where higher revenues result from higher rates.
zappa2496 2 years ago
Gore did not force it to the Supreme Court. Gore wanted the Florida Supreme Court to make a decision (basically because his opponent's brother was the state's Governor and the woman in charge of the election was the head of Bush's Election Campaign in FL.). It was James Baker, brought in by daddy to take care of his little boy, who took it to the Supreme Court.
tgear77 2 years ago 3
Funniest thing this man has ever said.
r0gm00r3 2 years ago
al franken is ahead by 312 votes and ITS APRIL, its time for him to be seated, this is rediculous
cooldawg888 2 years ago
Back in Reaganomics. Remember that voodoo stuff? Back then, as my buddy, pacmantab, seems to forget is when the Congress was saying stuff like, "Reagan knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace." So, THANK GOD FRANKEN IS NO REAGAN. We don't need another trainwreck onto of the economic disgrace Bush left of this nation. My god, let's not try to make this a 3rd world nation, pacmantab!
medartist01 2 years ago
Right...you don't want this to become a 3rd world nation, you want it to become a socalist nation, right? Spread the wealth and all? Sounds somewhat like class envy to me.
I'm sorry, but the last time we elected a celebrity-turned-politician here in Minnesota we got burned (Remember Govenor Ventura?). Now we have the very real chance of having Suart Smalley as a Senator....don't really like the odds of our economy rebounding anytime soon with him....
pacmantab 2 years ago
Seriously, as Joe Scarsborough said this morning, It's over Norm, you lost, It's over. So continue being a sore loser, but IT OVER!
cooldawg888 2 years ago 3
If it is indeed over, I am hopeful of two things:
One, we can finally put the demons of the 2000 Presidental election to rest....
Two, that I am wrong about Franken's lack of experience, lack of a real plan, his hair-trigger temper, etc. hampering his ability to lead.
pacmantab 2 years ago
Can you smell the hypocrisy? Colman says if he was losing he would step away for the good of the state, now that he is losing he files a suit! Guy is liar!
CYBER2OOTH1 2 years ago 6
Why doesn't he just give the fuck up? Al Franken won, he lost, Coleman needs to get the fuck over it.
Song476 2 years ago 3
Song476 ... You have a Filthy Mouth ! But you're a Liberal and venom is what you speak! Typical liberal fascist trying to steal another election, like in Washington in 2004, and the presidential election in 2000. Liberal Democrats have no values or standards; they make them up as they go. Conservatives have standards and values (Not saying they always act on them) but most use the Holy Bible as a standard! Whereas Liberals use Relativism!
RURIGHT 2 years ago
Fascinating. Your response to perceived value-free "filth" is to cast stones at another imperfect person. Since you reference the Bible, perhaps you should go back to it and read what Jesus says about what you are doing. :)
AnarKitty 2 years ago
AnarKitty..You make accusations and then you don't explain what I said to another "Imperfect Person"! And what am I doing that is, as a Christian, Sin? Are you referring to "Judging? What is it with you liberals speaking against judging and then Judging Christians as if they are perfect! There are levels of maturity in Christianity. Some people have been Christians for 20 years and are still Baby's in Christ! Some only a year and more mature! So what are you getting at? And what would Jesus do?
RURIGHT 2 years ago
Actually, RU, I was responding to the seemingly random cascade of name-calling, blind judgment and generic bigotry aimed at people you don't know in your post, which is rather out of character for someone holding forth Christianity as a standard.
You don't know that I or Song or anyone else here ISN'T Christian, or ARE liberal in thought, or anything else unless they have so stated. Particularly in the case of being Christian, in which case only that person and God would know, correct?
AnarKitty 2 years ago
Am I related to Coleman? Funny.
You want to talk about someone refusing to heed their own words when put to the test? In the very article you reference, Franken says: "Let me be clear: Our goal is to ensure that every vote is properly counted," but instead of allow the election contest to takes its full course, which is not Colemans pattern but his right, he had attempted MORE THAN ONCE to curtail itnot only all but demanding that he be seated now, but has gone so far as to (cont)
pacmantab 2 years ago
(cont from last):
motion to dismiss the trial. And there is no honorable way to spin that, either.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
As much as you hate Coleman, your painting him as the bad guy is blantantly out of turn. Dont tell me you actually buy the rant from all those political ads (on either side)?!?
The simply truth is this: Coleman is an accomplished public servant with many solid years of experiencewhether you wish to accept it or not. (cont)
pacmantab 2 years ago
(cont from last):
And any allegations of corruption, etc. are just thatallegations which without proof is meaningless.
Conversely, Al Franken is a has-been comedian who suddenly thought it a good idea to run for public office. Jesse Ventura had us believingand he flushed his opportunity down the toilet. With our state and country at such a critical crossroads, its only logical to prefer experience over inexperience.
pacmantab 2 years ago
(cont from last):
Unfortunately, the liberals had the far-too-easy job of selling change for changes sakenevermind what that may actually be.
And per this very video, Coleman said he'd step back from the recount...Franken drew "1st blood" not him.
If Franken does indeed win, I would be left with two things to do: One, congratulate him (I wonder if Coleman would get the same from you).
Two, I would hope against hope that I am as wrong about Franken as I know you are about Coleman.
pacmantab 2 years ago
Unfortunately, the Psychotic-MoreWar-Bushies had the job for 8 years, and screwed this nation so bad, she's on her back with a trainwreck for an economy, trillion dollar deficits, doubled national debt, 2 failed wars, a broken military, millions unemployed, stock market ruin, and the desecration of the American dream. Bush and the GOP shit on us, and are now laughing. They want more tax cuts for the rich AIG CEOs. I say, screw you. Coleman lost. Be a man. Get off the pot, you crone. Indeed.
medartist01 2 years ago 2
Lastly, pacmantab has no clue, when he pretends to know Franken. Ha. What a moron. Franken was involved in politics for years. He's a brilliant man, and just so happens to also be a comedian. A pretty successful one at that. Air America Radio. If you had just the time to listen to Al for five minutes you'd know. Of course, Reagan was JUST an actor? Stupid Then by your definition, Reagan should never have gotten into politics, ran for governor, etc. Pacman, you're arguments are pathetic. Really.
medartist01 2 years ago
Wow. Been awhile since someone used the Straw Man on me.
To suggest Franken is on the same level as Reagan ever was is laughable. This run for Senate is the FIRST attempt to gain public office on ANY LEVEL for Franken. Reagan had already served as Govenor of California for more than one term before seeking his first national public post (president). I won't even get into his expansive political background prior to his gubernatorial terms (cont)
pacmantab 2 years ago
(cont from last):
And, like the last administration, Reagan faced many difficult, unprecedented challenges. Times have become difficult, yes....but that is when you need experience the most....not change for change's sake.
On that note, Franken has hosted on Air America for what....five years? You call THAT being "involved in politics for years??" Really? (cont)
pacmantab 2 years ago
(cont from last):
Norm Coleman served as mayor of Saint Paul before trying to take the next step. And has one successful term as Senator.
Listen to Franken for five minutes?? I do not require one. He is the political equivalent to Howard Stern for crying out loud. Should he come out the winner of this election, he will enter with no real experience, no real plan and no real concept of what he's getting into.
For those who bought the whole "change" mantra: Be careful what you wish for
pacmantab 2 years ago
Wow. Really amazing that pacmantab would praise the man who TRIPLED the US national debt, and who, by financial experts said that when Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation, but by the time he left the presidency, we were the world's largest debtor nation. So these REPUBLICANS still fail to get it. They failed at protecting us on 9/11, eight months into their admin, and now, they fail our economy, AGAIN. Oh, but let's listen to their bozo advice? Ha.
medartist01 2 years ago
Your mention of 9/11 lost me. Just let it suffice that you are way off.
First....Clinton had a shot at preventing that tragic day as well....and our current deficit actually began during his final fiscal year.
Second....On 9/11 Democrats had control of the legislative branch....so be sure to include EVERYONE in your "they" comment, ok?
pacmantab 2 years ago
Well, you can essentially make anyone say anything when you take stuff out of context.
Whos to say Norm wasn't saying he'd "step back" from getting involved in the recount process versus letting them do their jobs. Instead, Franken gets to have it both ways and forces Coleman's hand....to make HIM look like the hypocrite.
I say let's have a run-off and put ALL this B.S. to rest. The waters are far too muddied up to really see a clear winner at this point.
pacmantab 2 years ago
interesting how you only say you want a runnoff when coleman asks for a new election. First of all, I think its very obvious at this point and second Al Franken would win the runoff by a lot due to norm's behaivior and scandals with the credit card numbers of the donors. Coleman needs to learn to stop trying to fight a lost cause.
cooldawg888 2 years ago
Ah, the old Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc falacy.
Truth be told, I've been talking about doing a run-off for awhile now.
And I actually agree with you on the point that Franken would probably win a runoff...especially considering that Franken's recount ploy worked like a charm.
Sooo...if Franken would win a run-off as you profess, then let's do it....what exactly would be the harm if you're so sure?? This way the loser loses with no excuses.
pacmantab 2 years ago
Id be very happy if they did a run, but even though Franken would win the runoff possibly by double digits, Coleman would find something else to bitch and moan about and claim the whole thing was fraud and that votes were double counted again and try to contest the thing no matter what happened
cooldawg888 2 years ago
Come on, cooldawg888, I think you're being a little disingenious at this point. If they did a runoff, it would wipe the slate clean. Plus, if the margin of victory WERE double-digits, then the loser would have no recourse. Game over at that point.
Let me put it this way...if the situation were reversed right now, Franken is not trying to ensure everything is on the up and up??
Its not about partisan politics...its about doing the right thing...AND doing the thing right.
pacmantab 2 years ago
fine then do a runoff, if you honestly think that would shut coleman up, but im telling you it wouldnt. He'd probably pull the same thing that Woody Jenkins pulled in 1996 when he lost to Landrieu. But its a moot point, since the senate is unlikely to grant. So keep running your mouth, I give up on arguing with you and your crap.
cooldawg888 2 years ago
Hmm....resorting to disparaging comments, like dismissing my points as "crap," is typically the first indication of a weak argument.
And...its not the senate that decides these things...its the given state that decides how their senators are chosen.
pacmantab 2 years ago
It wasn't "Franken's recount ploy". The recount was state-mandated according to Minnesota law. Franken didn't call for it. If he had won on Nov. 4th by the same margin as Coleman, we would still have had the recount.
tgear77 2 years ago
My apologies, tgear77, "Franken's recount ploy" was not the best choice of words. Let me reiterate what happened:
Had the recount actually been a true recount (re-count the ballots AND ONLY THE BALLOTS that were counted initially) then Coleman would have still had a slight lead....which would have forced Franken to either concede or challenge.
BUT....Franken's camp got ADDITIONAL, theretofore uncounted ballots into the recount....unfairly forcing Coleman's to challenge first.
pacmantab 2 years ago
Yes, Franken asked for 400 Absentee Ballots that had been rejected to be recounted. The Board overseeing the recount agreed that there was cause for that to happen. Given that on Election Day Coleman had a lead of over 500 votes and he is now lost by 250 votes, that is a swing of 750 votes. Even if Franken got all 400 of the absentee ballots (doubtful), he still picked up 350 other votes along the way. Coleman lost. He should give up. But he won't b/c he's a narcissistic prick.
tgear77 2 years ago
Er, no...that's not entirely true. The board actually rejected the request initially but the issue was pushed to the state supreme court who eventually allowed it.
My point is this: Why did said ballots HAVE to be added so soon? The Franken camp would have been able to ask for their inclusion in court....AFTER the recount.
And now, after Al got to have it both ways, he has attempted several times to get seated...BEFORE this matter is resolved. Not the actions of a clear-cut winner....
pacmantab 2 years ago
Well, since he is the clear cut winner, then I suppose that these are the actions of a clear-cut winner. There is nothing wrong with him trying to be seated since Minnesota has a right to have two Senators while Congress is in session. And how is that any different from Coleman actually trying to go to Washington before the process was even completed? They had to bar him from his former offices.
tgear77 2 years ago
You cannot show conclusively yet that anyone is the "clear cut winner." No one can. Did you know the Franken camp tried to have this election contest dismissed as well? If they are the so "clear cut," what are they afraid of?
And, for the record, Coleman had to shut down his former offices because his term had expired...not because they had to "bar him" for "going to Washington."
I should not have to to do your work for you - get your facts and numbers straight on your own.
pacmantab 2 years ago
Coleman sent staff members to D.C. in early Jan. assuming that he would just continue operating as the Senator from Minnesota. The Congressional Officers had to bar his staff from going back to their office and inform Coleman that he could not take part in Congressional business until he was declared a Senator. Get your own facts straight and stop swallowing the Coleman line.
tgear77 2 years ago
Comment removed
pacmantab 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stop swallowing the Coleman line?! And I suppose I should START swallowing YOUR lines....like this imaginary 750-vote swing of yours that would make this trial moot? Too bad said swing is pure fiction, 'ol "get your own facts straight!"
Who's the REAL hypocrite, here?
pacmantab 2 years ago
And I note that you failed to add that, on Jan 15th, Democratic and Republican leaders unanimously agreed Thursday to reopen Norm Coleman's U.S. Senate offices until Feb. 4 to archive and transfer case files on constituent services.
So it wasn't a matter of Coleman trying to continue as a Senator, it was to ensure outstanding constituent requests, etc. were properly archived/transferred....like any responsible public servant would.
Coleman is not nearly as bad as you want him to be....
pacmantab 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but if you believe that Coleman was going to Washington out of concern for his fellow Minnesotans, then you are too far gone to debate. Coleman has shown nothing but contempt for this whole process and is now threatening to tie up the Senatorial seating for years. He only goes onto Conservative programs like Lars Larson and Sean Hannity so he can go on about how the election was stolen from him. Yet here he is in this video saying that "if it was me..." he'd step aside. Well, do it!
tgear77 2 years ago
Debate?! Usually debates are conducted with facts, not fiction.
So if this situation were reversed, you would be berating Franken just as fiercely about "tying up the seating for years," right? Right.
And I don't see Franken rushing to be interviewed by O'Riley or Fox News, either.
BTW, the quote in this video is likely taken out of context. By "stepping back," Coleman might have meant from the recount process and letting them do their jobs versus sneaking in ballots prematurely...
pacmantab 2 years ago
First off, you assume that Franken would drag this all the way to the Supreme Court like Coleman is threatening. Maybe he wouldn't, we don't know. Second, i'm not saying that Coleman should go on Countdown or Hardball (although I would love to see it), but if he was not the partisan toady he is, he would go on the major news channels or Meet the Press or even 60 Minutes. But he won't, because they won't kiss his ass. Really now, do you think O'Reilly would have Franken on?
tgear77 2 years ago
(cont).. The quote is not taken out of context. I saw the press conference back in November. He said what he meant, that he thought Franken should just give up and forego the recount. No tricky editing, nothing but Coleman hoisting himself on his own petard. Obviously you hate Franken and think Coleman is wonderful, so I know nothing I say will change your mind. But Coleman deserves to lose. He should just take his ball and go home.
tgear77 2 years ago
I guess the memory of the last washed-up B-List celebrity we elected to public office is still all-too-fresh in my mind. Remember how wonderful THAT turned out??
It's not that Franken had no right to dispute certain ballots, he just put the carriage in front of the horse is all....and that made Coleman look like the one "dragging this on and on" out of turn.
But, like it or not, Coleman has rights....and your calling for him to "step back" right here and now doesn't change that. Sorry...
pacmantab 2 years ago
You mean Ronald Reagan? The hero of the GOP! Yeah, wasn't he a wonder!
Hey, I wish he would "step back", but I didn't call for it. Just watch the video and see Norm himself say that he would do so. But he's a Republican so he must be lying since his lips are moving.
tgear77 2 years ago
Last I checked, we were talking about Minnesota. Are you even paying attention to the "debate" anymore??
Even IF the quote as reported in this video is "100% correct," then that would mean Coleman would "step back" from a recount....we're not in the recount phase anymore.
You profess that you didn't call for him to "step back??" Then what did you mean by "He should just take his ball and go home."
Care to tap-dance your way around that one??
pacmantab 2 years ago
Oh, sorry, you meant Jesse Ventura? Have to admit I didn't get the reference since I'm not a wrestling fan. When you say celebrity, my mind doesn't go to washed up wrestlers.
tgear77 2 years ago
No, on Nov. 5th, I didn't call for him to "step back". He did. It's right there in the video. Coleman responding to the question and saying "If it were me...". Well, now it is you, Norm. The mandatory part of the process is over and you lost. All further appeals and delays are Coleman's personal choice. So the man who said "If it were me..." has now shown himself to be a liar. Coleman wanted Franken to concede, but he is to shallow and selfserving to do so himself. How can you defend such a liar
tgear77 2 years ago
Sigh....you still don't get it, do you?
Franken did not have to rush like he did to get disputed ballots counted....he could have, and per the initial board decision should have, waited until after the mandatory recount. That would have shown, per the CORRECT math (not your "fuzzy" math) that Coleman would have still led....forcing Franken to either concede or challenge.
(cont)
pacmantab 2 years ago
(cont from last):
Unfortunately, Franken's camp managed to have it both ways....flip-flopping the lead and making Coleman look like a hypocrite in being forced to challenge due to the fact that not ALL disputed ballots were considered at that time....again putting his constiuents above himself.
Let's be clear...it could very well come to pass that Franken won...but he chose not to "step back" and got involved in the recount.(cont)
pacmantab 2 years ago
(cont from last): which, I must admit, turned out to be a great ploy....as it makes Coleman look like a "liar" out of turn....especially in the eyes of close-minded liberals....
Love the way you're backing off from your quote: "Hey, I wish he would 'step back'." Of course you wouldn't have wanted the one trailing to "step back" on Nov. 5th....but now you want it to happen at all speed, don't you?
And so does Franken (i.e., his attempted motion to dimiss the contest before its done)..Hmmm
pacmantab 2 years ago
Are you related to Coleman? Is that why you defend him so? According to the Star Tribune on Nov. 6th, "Coleman urged Franken to waive his right to a recount, saying the prospect of changing the outcome was remote". There is another video there of him saying "I would step back" in order to allow Minnesota to move forward. Well, he has had enough time to show that he is a man of his word and yet he has yet to step aside. There is no honorable way to spin that. In his own words he said that he...
tgear77 2 years ago
(cont) ..would step aside so that Minnesota could have two Senators serving, yet when put to the test, he refuses. And now he's going the legal route, which is his pattern. He filed a lawsuit against Humphrey in the '98 gubernatorial race; filed two separate ones against Wellstone in 2002, and has already filed a defamation suit against Franken that was thrown out. His lawyers played fast and loose during the recount and were charged with contempt. As much as you hate Franken, stop painting ...
tgear77 2 years ago
(cont) Norm as the good guy here. He is a corrupt politician who can't bear the thought of losing his gravy train. He will fight and fight despite his promise to step aside. And when he finally loses, he will go on Fox and blame the dreaded liberal media.
tgear77 2 years ago
Also....you numbers are way off....pretty much across the board.
pacmantab 2 years ago
Explain where my math is off. Coleman went from 500 ahead to 250 behind. That is a swing of 750 votes. Seems like simple math to me.
tgear77 2 years ago
I'm surprised coleman isn't pushing for a re-VOTE.
c'mon norm, you say it right in the video... take a step back. you're only hurting your state and the rest of the country at this point.
soundboy3 2 years ago 2
Now this faggot is crying recount after he said there will be "Too Much At Stake for a Recount". F*cking sore loser!
rhazmel 3 years ago
thats because the idea was to count every vote, they rejected a lot of ballots thats stupid.
lambofwassy2 2 years ago
Has anyone shown this video of Norm Coleman to Norm Coleman. Maybe, he forgot what he said, and it will help him figure out what to do, now.
ThatguyNice 3 years ago 3
I'm sure we all expect Norm to give up the lawsuit since the recount is finished. And as we saw from this clip, by the way he so genuinely touches his heart, he wants to unvoid dragging this thing out beyond reason.
0o0sublime0o0 3 years ago 3
Based on his own advice: I think it's time for Norm to step down and give up the lawsuit.
0o0sublime0o0 3 years ago
HAHAHA Hilarious!
SkullVodka 3 years ago 4
Say bye bye to Norman the chicken-hawk.
SARTEEY 3 years ago 5
this criminal is a true ZERO
bluetickrunner 3 years ago
I love how this discussion has gone:
1) Franken supporters brand Coleman a hypocrite, when it was the Franken campaign who pushed for rejected ballots to be considered in the first place. Demand that Franken be "seated ASAP"
2) Someone comes along and make a point that runs counter to the above.
3) Folks from #1 engage in character assasination of the person from #2 out of turn. In addition, they start to make disparaging jokes about Coleman, etc.
Starting to see why they like Al..
pacmantab 3 years ago
I have to say that when Pacmantab says the term "40-odd" rather than just 49 votes, he sounds like a complete dumbass. In addition, any more ballots to be counted will still show Franken leading, its time Franken be seated. End of story
cooldawg888 3 years ago
BTW, I use the term "40-odd" because it covers for yet another error on your part.
The original Franken-based estimate was 47, not 49 votes.
Time Franken be seated? End of story? Why the rush if you're so sure any more ballots would still have Franken leading? Hmmm.
pacmantab 3 years ago
Yes! The best part is that BOTH campaigns have more absentee ballots that they wanted counted. Coleman is just being a baby because he's on the losing side. This is why the senate rules that BOTH campaigns must agree which ballots were wrongly rejected....so one of the campaigns doesn't pull last minute desperate attempts to make up "wrongly rejected votes."
GrantmotherTubes 3 years ago
Interesting to see that NOW he wants ALL votes counted, because Democracy is TOO IMPORTANT!! What a shameful, obvious flip-flop.
WhyNotTruth 3 years ago 2
Coleman had his nose up Bush's butt too many times. He DESERVES to lose.
Trekkerjon 3 years ago 2
Norm got that operation where his nose was attached to shrub's anus.
However, in the next week he needs that reversed, because when shrub returns to Texas they could be arrested for breaking the state's anti-gay laws.
RandallFlaggNY 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If anyone wants to find out how to know one hundred percent for sure that if you were to die today you would go to heaven, go ahead and click on my channel link and I have a detailed explanation written there.
AlCh1990 3 years ago
Norm Coleman is being such an asshole keeping Al Franken from starting his term in the senate. Concede you sore hypocrite, criminal, loser, the country needs to start the healing process from your bullshit!
cooldawg888 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The so-called "recount" was nothing of the kind. A recount should have simply "RECOUNTED" the ballots that were counted the first time.
THEN...if the numbers still had Coleman on top, motions could have been made to look at ALL disputed ballots...not just 900+ ballots cherry-picked from certain areas.
The way this was done forced the Coleman campaign's hand when Franken should have been the one contesting....making Norm look like the hypocrite.
I just pray the correct numbers come out
pacmantab 3 years ago
The correct numbers will come out...and show that Coleman lost. Nobody "made" Coleman look like a hypocrite, he did it to himself by making that pompous, moronic statement and then not following through when the numbers went Franken's way. Give me a f*cking break!
gfoneill 3 years ago
No...YOU give ME a break! The recount should have been just that: A recount of the SAME ballots that were counted before. NOT the same ballots...PLUS select ballots that just happened to favor one canidate over the other.
The only way the correct numbers will come out is if ALL improperly rejected ballots are included...which is why Coleman is challenging. (cont).
pacmantab 3 years ago
(cont from last): But the thing you are glossing over is that Franken was the first to bring up rejected ballots...during the recount. That issue could/should have waited until AFTER the recount. Franken got his way tho, which forced Coleman to APPEAR as if he was the one "not following through."
And now Franken and his allies want him seated ASAP. I'm sure they do...because they are afraid of what a lawsuit might uncover...?
I can accept Coleman losing...but only if he TRULY lost.
pacmantab 3 years ago
ur an idiot, the actual recount uncovered that Coleman lost buy 49 and the absentee ballots made that loss greater. The only person who tried to stop vote from being counted was NORM COLEMAN. He is a disgusting piece of filth. Every ballot was counted by hand in front of the camera making it impossible for any votes to be surpressed. The most accurate count shows Franken ahead meaning FRANKEN WON, all you Republicans are typical! Go back to playing Pacman Pacmantab!
cooldawg888 3 years ago
That 40-odd lead by Franken was an estimate from the Franken campaign itself...and MIGHT have resulted from double-counting certain ballots...another wrinkle we need to investigate.
The other thing you are mistaken about is the fact that Minnesota law dictates that a vote this close HAS to have a recount. Neither candidate could have stopped the recount if they tried.
I actually come from a bipartisan household and we voted not on party lines, but whom we felt could do the job.
pacmantab 3 years ago
you sound like Elisabeth Hasselback on the view, never willing to admit the Republican are wrong! Have fun spewing your republican crap all over the place, while Norm Coleman ends up in jail!
cooldawg888 3 years ago
Those "cherry picked" ballots were presented by BOTH sides!!
WhyNotTruth 3 years ago
It would seem you missed my point:
The recount should have simply done the RECOUNT OF THE BALLOTS COUNTED THE FIRST TIME.
That would have resulted in Coleman still being ahead. THEN Franken could have (which would have been his right) to challenge whether disputed ballots should be added to the count.
The so-called "flip flop" you allude to was only due to Franken being allowed to have it both ways.
As for the disputed ballots...ALL of them (including 600+ not yet in) should be in.
pacmantab 3 years ago
I have one question for PACMANTAB,
what evidence is there that Norm actually won? your comments dont make sense, even when the recount was done without the rejected absentee ballots, Al Franken was still ahead by 49 votes. You make no sense at all. Norm Coleman needs to concede so we can move on.
cooldawg888 3 years ago
You are incorrect. That 40-odd lead for Franken did not materialize until the disputed ballots began to be added...and was initially reported per an estimate provided by the Franken campaign itself.
I'm all about doing the right thing...regardless of how it turns out. But we have to ensure that the THING is done RIGHT.
pacmantab 3 years ago
ummm sorry ur still not making any sense except your trying to sound smarter by saying terms like "40 odd", those disputed ballots were decided by an impartial election board like the law says. Sorry that the Franken campaign happened to be accurate in their estimate as was Nate Silver, and the Associated Press. You still make no sense in your argument what so ever. So once again, how where things not done right in this recount????? keep trying
cooldawg888 3 years ago
Well, I actually read up on what has been going on. It really doesn't matter what you say, what the AP says, or whatever. The fact of the matter is that Franken did not have the lead until AFTER the disputes ballots started getting added. That's irrefutable...so you can say whatever you want.
If ALL ballots are considered (and they have yet to be despite any insistence to the contrary) and Franken still comes out ahead, I will accept that...but NOT before...
pacmantab 3 years ago
What's wrong with counting disputed ballots? The canvassing board has the authority so why shouldn't they? SOMEONE will have to count the disputed ballots. How are you so positive that the courts would do a better job?
WhyNotTruth 3 years ago
I will answer your question WITH a question: If you're so certain the recount was so accurate, why not take the time to silence the critics (myself included), let the courts have a look and put all the B.S. to rest?
Instead I keep hearing "seat Franken now...seat him now!"
Kind of reminds me of an NFL team who knows they just got away with a bad call and are rushing to snap the ball before a challenge flag is thrown....
pacmantab 3 years ago
I didn't say seat him now. I was trying to wait it out and silence the critics that way, but the critics keep speaking up BEFORE the process is done!! I'm glad you have seen the light.
WhyNotTruth 3 years ago
Sorry...I meant "I keep hearing.." as in other people are saying that, my bad.
pacmantab 3 years ago
First of all, Im sure everyone is sick of PACMANTAB sounding like Elisabeth Hasselback. Second, in 1997, Mary Landreiu was provisionally seated even in January even though she wasn't certified the winner of the runnoff until October. Their allowing Burris to be seated which is outrageous. Let Franken be seated while this is being disputed since Coleman is determined to drag this thing out for months.
cooldawg888 3 years ago
I agree that we should seat someone if this is going to drag on for months...or more. That is the govenor's perogative.
I say let's seat Dean Barkely...at least he had the guts to speak his mind during the debates!
pacmantab 3 years ago
that would be a terrible idea, Dean Barkley created this mess. Either appoint Franken or appoint someone who wasnt in this election to start with.
cooldawg888 3 years ago
That's a great idea. Give the seat to the guy 86% of the voters voted against.
elperromagico 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
cooldawg888, Mary Landreiu is a Louisiana Senator...so her case has nothing to do with this issue. The issue surround Burris aside, he finally got an election certificate...which is why he was seated...something Franken has yet to obtain.
BTW, resorting to insults and mudslinging out of turn is usually the first sign that someone realizes they have no standing in an argument. Just saying....
pacmantab 3 years ago
first of all you completely misunderstood what I said. Mary Landreiu did NOT have an election certificate until around 11 months after she won the runoff in 1996 and she was still seated. Second you have a lot of nerve to say my argument has no standing when AL FRANKEN IS THE ONE WHO IS AHEAD!
cooldawg888 3 years ago
No, I actually DO understand what you said...and my argument still holds. She is from another state...which means her case has NO...BEAR-ing on this one.
Second, you are right: Al Franken is ahead....for now.
Again, what is the rush? Sen. Klobuchar herself said having an empty seat for now will not case any issues in the short term.
So let's allow this election contest to run its proper course.
That way if Coleman still comes out on the short end, it is with no doubt...or excuses.
pacmantab 3 years ago
Guess what Franken is being seating while these stupid lawsuits are in process. Thank you Harry Reid, they are doing the same thing that they did for Mary Landreiu. Hello senator Franken.
cooldawg888 3 years ago
Might want to get your facts straight:
Reid's exact words were: "We're going to try to seat Al Franken,"
Again, my friend, why are you in such a rush? You're like a football team trying to get the next snap off before a challenge is called because they know they got away with something....
The farce is with you, Al Franken....but you're not a Senator yet.
And I don't know how to make this any plainer: Sen. Landreiu's case has NO BEARING here. NONE!
pacmantab 3 years ago
"So let's allow this election contest to run its proper course."
The recount was the "proper course" and now Norman is taking it to the courts because he doesnt like the official results. Why doesnt he take his own advice and concede?
kubush 3 years ago
kubush, I must assume you didn't read my earlier posts. If you had you'd know that the "recount" wasn't exactly a recount in the pure sense.
Let it suffice to say that Franken got over....forcing Coleman's hand when it should have been Franken being forced to file the contest. Coleman may appear to be hypocritical at this point, but only to the untrained eye.
pacmantab 3 years ago
"Coleman may appear to be hypocritical at this point, but only to the untrained eye."
ROTFL. Suffice it to say Coleman got over in the initial count but it was corrected with the recount. No one is forcing Coleman to take it to court.
The only ppl that dont see the hypocrisy are those with the "conservative eye."
kubush 3 years ago
Actually, ours is a bipartisan household...and we all voted for Coleman because he is the most qualified. That pretty much goes without saying.
BTW, I'm glad you think the possibility of hundreds, if not thousands, of voters being disenfranchised funny....turning to inappropriate humor must be a liberal trait...;-)
pacmantab 3 years ago
Im sick of hearing how bipartisan you are. The truth is that you are a conservative and you sound just like Elisabeth Hasselback. Franken got more votes and Coleman lost because he a corrupt senator who only cares for serving himself and the special interests. Just look at the new job he took. Its a statement saying he knows he lost!
cooldawg888 3 years ago
I'm starting to think you have a crush on Elisabeth Hasselback.
pacmantab 3 years ago
actually i dont. Your and her view are very similar since you both claim that you come from bi-partisan household and then show ultra-conservative view. In addition, both you and her sound like morons. Anyone who would vote for an extremely conservative and corrupt senator like Coleman is not bipartisan at all.
cooldawg888 3 years ago
How is wanting to ensure all ballots are considered "ultra-conservative?!" Does that mean Gore was an "ultra-conservative" in 2000?!?
And Coleman extremely conservative and corrupt??! According to what? The Franken Ads?!?
Who's really the moron, here?
pacmantab 3 years ago
Nice of you to tell me what I am laughing at. Typical of conservatives. I was laughing at Coleman's and your hypocrisy. Not at the disenfranchisment of any votes.
kubush 3 years ago 3
Actually, in Minnesota law, the court is part of the recount process. It's purpose is to resolve any issues that were not addressed in the recount, which is what Coleman is trying to do.
aoeiiking5 3 years ago
Now you are changing your argument. At first you said that Franken was only in the lead after the disputed absentee ballot stage. Now your argument is that the lead occurred after the disputed ballot stage. These are two different stages. The latter is part of the official recount, where votes that were counted during election day were challenged by both sides. The former occurred after the recount phase, looking for improperly rejected absentee ballots....
zappa2496 2 years ago
Oh, and your attempt to "dumb me down" by saying "duh....you're not making any sense...your trying to sound smarter by...blah blah blah.." Classy.
pacmantab 3 years ago
After both of the disputed ballots stage (which is what would be the end of what you would describe as the recount stage) and the disputed absentee ballot stage, Franken had the lead.
zappa2496 2 years ago
You must have me confused with someone else. I have yet to change my argument (flip-flopping is what the left tends to do...LOL).
The canvassing board initially denied FRANKEN'S call to add disputed ballots during the recount. But that issue was taken to the state supreme court and was allowed..forcing Coleman to look like a hypocrite.
If the disputed ballots "stage" is part of the recount, WHY would the board say to wait until after the recount??
Can't wait to hear this one explained
pacmantab 2 years ago
Okay, let me use the terminology used by the election board, the challenge phase was part of the recount. It was at the end of this phase that Franken took his first lead. As you defined the recount earlier, the challenge phase would count as part of the recount because it was counting votes that were counted on election day. They were removed from the count because one or both campaigns challenged the ballots. These are not the disputed absentee ballots as you claim...
zappa2496 2 years ago
Your claim that the disputed absentee ballots were what gave Franken the lead is incorrect. The decision was handed down a day before the end of the recount of votes in the challenge phase, but counting of the ballots in question didn't occur until nearly three weeks later. There is a time line at the Star Tribune that shows the exact order as I have here.
zappa2496 2 years ago
To make it easier to look up, type in "Minnesota time line Star Tribune" in Google and it should be the first site on the list. Now I challenge you to show evidence for your version of the time line, that is inline with your definition of the recount with the fact that by your definition, the Challenge Phase is part of the recount as I mentioned before. Conversely, you could argue that the Challenge Phase is not part of the recount, but it would require changing your definition of recount.
zappa2496 2 years ago
No, no, no. I NEVER said...and NEVER HAVE SAID...that the challenge phase was part of the recount. When you start putting words in my mouth to bolster your own argument, that's when I will "step back" and leave you to your coping mechanisms....
And you keep glossing over the fact that the board rejected the challenge, but the state supreme court was called in....any guess as by whom??
Finally, the Strib as a reliable news source? A.k.a. "Liberal Central?" Please....
pacmantab 2 years ago
"The so-called "recount" was nothing of the kind. A recount should have simply "RECOUNTED" the ballots that were counted the first time."
Look familiar. It should, since it is something you wrote on here. The challenge phase was reviewing votes that were counted the first time that were later challenged by one or both of the two campaigns. By your very words, then the challenge phase was part of the recount. It was at the end of this phase that Franken gained his first lead...
zappa2496 2 years ago
Ah......no.....My quote does NOT express nor imply that I believe that the challenge phase was part of the recount. In fact, it states the opposite.
Anyone else see what zappa2496 apparently sees???
Again, please stop putting words in my mouth....
pacmantab 2 years ago
The quote says that those votes that were counted the first time were the only one that should have counted in the recount. The Challenge Phase ballots that gave Franken the lead in mid-December were ballots that were counted the first time that were later separated from other ballots due to a challenge by one or both campaigns. Put the two together and the Challenge Phase was part of what you described as the recount...
zappa2496 2 years ago
One other thing, it's not worth tying to appeal to others about what I am or am not reading into your statement, as it is likely that we have managed to scare everyone else off of this thread.
zappa2496 2 years ago
I guess I don't get why Franken was allowed to have the board look at absentee ballots during the recount, but Coleman was told that he had to wait, saying he could bring it up in an election contest if need be.
You're right, we probably HAVE scared everyone else off this thread. In any event, it sounds like Coleman might take it to Federal court anyway....so the saga continues....
pacmantab 2 years ago
Your second point makes it obvious that you still either don't get that the challenge phase and the count of rejected absentee ballots were two separate events or you won't admit to it since it counters your point. Will you at least admit that the "challenge" that you are talking about is separate than the challenged ballot phase which has always been part of recount?
zappa2496 2 years ago
And you STILL ignore the fact that the canvassing board, who RAN the RECOUNT....initially denied the challenge...but the state supreme court then intervened.
pacmantab 2 years ago
I'll admit to that if you admit that the stage that gave Franken the lead was before the ballots that the state supreme court said to count were even counted in January, as the evidence that I have pointed to has shown.
zappa2496 2 years ago
Finally, I'll give you a conservative source that will back up the time line of the Strib. First, search "December 18 Franken" in Google and look for the Human Events entry. That will confirm, if you read the article, that:
1. Franken was leading at the end of December when the challenge phase ended
2. That the ballots affected by the case you keep mentioning were not counted until early January.
Therefore, those ballots only added to Franken's lead, not gave him his initial lead.
zappa2496 2 years ago
Let me say something here: It may very well be that Franken won. The only point I have issue with was Franken got to have it both ways DURING the recount when he should have waited until its end. THEN he could have contested the election (as he should have had to do). All else being equal, we may be at this exact same position.
But, since the carriage was put in front of the horse, if you will, Coleman was forced to contest it...(cont)
pacmantab 2 years ago
(cont from last): And most are forgetting that its not just about disenfranchised voters whose votes did not count but should have, its also about those counted, but now have been offset by only a "subset" of added ballots - out of many thousands that should be considered....
To say nothing of what this will do for Coleman's career...had Albeen forced to contest as he should have, Coleman might have another chance to run again...curtailed now by his being branded a sore loser out of turn.
pacmantab 2 years ago
While there has been a allegation of added votes, every step of the way the allegation has been ruled without merit because no evidence was presented. If there was such evidence, don't you think that Coleman would be advertising it everywhere. Instead, there is only the allegation, which is a long way from proof.
The disenfranchised voters have had their ballots examined several times now. Guidance by state bodies have been given, ballots analyzed by justices...
zappa2496 2 years ago
... The number of disenfranchised votes that may have the standing to be counted are now down to a handful. The latest batch that was allowed to be examined again didn't have 100% of the ballots meet standards set to allow counting.
As for Coleman's career, I can't say I feel sorry for him. He set himself up for this with his remarks before, during, and after the recount. Even if he didn't mean them as said, he is a politician that should have been more aware of his statements affect on PR.
zappa2496 2 years ago
Wow! Coleman is extra oily. If you shook his hands, you would have to wipe yours off in your clothes. What a big time hypocrite!LOL!
The healing process, my ass.
ThatguyNice 3 years ago
loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser loser
jeffbw 3 years ago
Typical Republicvnt! When the game changes in the other guy's favor, so did Coleman's view.
What a perfect ass! He should be ashamed of himself...and, he should also get stuck with ALL the legal bills for this! Douschebag!
Cassadine1966 3 years ago 2
Wow... now he does a complete 180 and says that every vote should be counted no matter what!! Bastard politicians.
WhyNotTruth 3 years ago
No, Coleman has lost the election and there's no way he can win. All this lawsuit business is about is obstructing the Democratic agenda.
jeffbw 3 years ago
whatta goose...empty those pockets BUCKYBEAVER
mildouche 3 years ago
Bye bye Norm!!!!
Hello Senator Franken!!!!
parttimeuser 3 years ago 4
The healing process needs to begin now Norm, step back..
sarsfield65 3 years ago 3
Not really to germane to the other comments but Norm Coleman's lawyer is my former teamate from my swimming team's dad. I don't like coleman but anybody would try to keep going with such a small number of votes deciding the winner.
TheHawk1900 3 years ago
If that's the case, why does Norm (in this clip) say that if it were him, we would step back?
Norm Coleman is a lying, slimy snake.
domulys 3 years ago 3
oh sweet, sweet, irony. asking al franken to concede the election before the manditory recount that franken couldn't have even stopped if he had wanted to. now that the recount shows franken to be the winner, is he stepping down gracefully to help the healing process? nope, taking every legal recourse allowed. have fun with your political suicide jackass.
largegrainsofsalt 3 years ago 2