Rusty silver linings

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's what you call it when disqualified votes are counted. Voting laws are in place to mitigate voter fraud, though with Democrats in charge one wonders why we even bother to pass them anymore.

They aren't counting disqualified votes. They are counting votes that were disqualified incorrectly (i.e., counting good votes).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

They aren't counting disqualified votes. They are counting votes that were disqualified incorrectly (i.e., counting good votes).

That's the Franken line, yes.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tex if Franken is brought in, he will be an embarrassment. Just like Mrs. Kennedy. Bad for GOP in short-run, but could be helpful in long-run.

Agreed.

The next several years will be extremely difficult with Obama and the Dems in charge - and the economic hell will last long after Obama is 4 and out - but this could make the recent GOP idiocy look mild.

[MikeWaters]

Fraken and Frank. Two bumbling idiots who like the stage. God help us.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Fraken and Frank. Two bumbling idiots who like the stage. God help us.

I hadn't thought about that. It would suck, but the entertainment value has high potential.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's the Franken line, yes.

The Franken campaign isn't the one making the determination as to which ballots to count, Tex. So no, that isn't the Franken campaign's line. That is the "line" from the officials in Minnesota.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The Franken campaign isn't the one making the determination as to which ballots to count, Tex. So no, that isn't the Franken campaign's line. That is the "line" from the officials in Minnesota.

Of course it's Franken's line. Just because the courts agreed with him in this instance doesn't change that.

What constitutes "improperly rejected" and when that issue can even be revisited is entirely subjective once you throw election law out the window.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Of course it's Franken's line. Just because the courts agreed with him in this instance doesn't change that.

What constitutes "improperly rejected" and when that issue can even be revisited is entirely subjective once you throw election law out the window.

Nobody threw election law out the window, Tex, and it isn't "entirely subjective" any more than it is "entirely subjective" when the initial determination is made (by someone far less qualified to make the determination than the subsequent reviewer who has the benefit of legal counsel, time, and all the facts available).

Your guy lost. You don't like it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Nobody threw election law out the window, Tex, and it isn't "entirely subjective" any more than it is "entirely subjective" when the initial determination is made (by someone far less qualified to make the determination than the subsequent reviewer who has the benefit of legal counsel, time, and all the facts available).

That's a matter for the legislature to decide in lawmaking, not for the courts to re-write later when they get the whim.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Your guy lost. You don't like it.

Franken is certainly not "my" guy, but I have every confidence in his efforts to cheat his way out of his loss.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's a matter for the legislature to decide in lawmaking, not for the courts to re-write later when they get the whim.



Franken is certainly not "my" guy, but I have every confidence in his efforts to cheat his way out of his loss.

The courts aren't rewriting anything. That is what happened in 2000 with a bogus ruling that was so transparently bogus, the Court actually said the case would have no binding precedent.

The state is following the mantra of "count every legal vote." When that happens, your guy loses. Democracy sucks for Republicans. You can't buy your way out of everything.