Author Topic: We have 100 Senators again.  (Read 12852 times)

Offline Red Dragon Thorn

  • Covenant Games
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Covenant Games
We have 100 Senators again.
« on: June 30, 2009, 02:41:09 PM »
0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31667236/ns/politics-capitol_hill

Looks like the inevitable happened and the Supreme Court told Coleman to pack it in and go home

MN will soon have its 2 senators again, giving the Dem's a Filibuster proof majority.
www.covenantgames.com

Offline TimMierz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4047
  • I can't stop crying. Buckets of tears.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Tim's Photos
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2009, 03:22:04 PM »
0
It's about time that whole mess was sorted out.
Get Simply Adorable Slugfest at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/simply-adorable-slugfest

Offline Professoralstad

  • Tournament Host, Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10841
  • Everything is Awesome!
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2009, 03:45:21 PM »
0
Now Minnesotans can get on to worrying about important things like whether or not Favre will come to the Vikings.

Although I wouldn't say it's over until Pawlenty signs the certificate. I wouldn't put it past Norm to appeal to federal courts. But I guess I couldn't blame him, since the alternative is letting Franken go to Washington. There's a reason why Obama won handily here in MN, while Franken (maybe) won by a slight margin. And it's not because Coleman is wildly popular...
Press 1 for more options.

~Jake of the Wolves~

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2009, 04:12:12 PM »
0
It's over? Wonder how many times that headline's come up

Offline Rubber band warrior

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2009, 04:49:57 PM »
0
Joke:

Why is Al Franken going to be holding a seance this weekend?

To be thanking the people who voted for him!

(There were more votes cast than there were actual people who showed up to the polls... in case you didn't get the joke.)

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2009, 04:52:13 PM »
0
 :laugh:
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

~Jake of the Wolves~

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2009, 04:57:09 PM »
0
I might get it except for...whats a seance?

Offline crustpope

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+27)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3844
  • Time for those Reds to SHINE!
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2009, 05:02:55 PM »
0
That is the democratic way right?  AS they say in Chicago, "Vote early, Vote often"
This space for rent

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2009, 05:05:17 PM »
0
It's to contact dead people, suggesting that the vote was stuffed with illegal ballots, e.g. from registrants who are actually dead now.

If it was Illinois I'd say it was an even bet.  This is a little more like Washington state a few years back, where you just keep counting until you get the result you want.

But then, everybody thinks it's fixed when it's not "their guy" who wins.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2009, 05:30:36 PM »
0
(There were more votes cast than there were actual people who showed up to the polls... in case you didn't get the joke.)
During the oral argument before the MN Supreme Court, one of the justices asked if there was any evidence of fraud or intentional misconduct and the lawyer for team Coleman answered with an emphatic no. It's too bad you weren't there, Rubber Band, to point out that there were more votes cast than voters. That might have helped the Coleman case.

There's a reason why Obama won handily here in MN, while Franken (maybe) won by a slight margin.
Just as there's a reason why in his three state wide campaigns, Norm Coleman lost to a former professional wrestler, barely beat a dead guy, and lost to a comedian.

This is a little more like Washington state a few years back, where you just keep counting until you get the result you want.
Like RBW's claim above this statement is false. You don't have to trust me, however. The entire process was videotaped and followed pre-existing Minnesota State law to the letter, so you can point out the flaws directly. If you want to believe the process was tainted, go ahead, but realize that the Coleman lawyers disagree with you, as do the Justices (predominantly appointed by Republican governors) whom voted unanimously in every single major decision.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2009, 05:39:14 PM by EmJayBee83 »

~Jake of the Wolves~

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2009, 05:35:28 PM »
0
I get it. Joke is funny.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2009, 05:39:17 PM »
0
Quote
Just as there's a reason why in his three state wide campaigns, Norm Coleman lost to a former professional wrestler, barely beat a dead guy, and lost to a comedian.

Says more about the state than it does about Norm Coleman...
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2009, 05:47:59 PM »
0
Ahhhh, politics......

On a related note, Kevin Youkilis passed Mark Texieria in All-Star voting for AL First Basmen, even though he is mired in a horrible slump. Clearly my fellow Red Sox fans have manipulated the system. You know something is wrong when Ted Williams casted one of the votes, since there couldn't possibly be another T.W. anywhere in Red Sox Nation.

 ;)
My wife is a hottie.

Offline LadyNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1516
  • LadyNobody
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Reflections (my blog)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2009, 05:55:25 PM »
0
I may love Minnesota...but sometimes the people here confound me.

I'm glad that it was Senator Klobuchar that presented my team with awards at the WAC...if it had been Al Franken, I might have refused to shake his hand.

~Britta
Fortress Alstad

Offline sk

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4028
  • I am a leaf on the wind.
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • My Facebook
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2009, 06:14:35 PM »
0
Quote
Just as there's a reason why in his three state wide campaigns, Norm Coleman lost to a former professional wrestler, barely beat a dead guy, and lost to a comedian.

Maybe we really are part of MN... our governor position has been filled by a very similar list of people...
"I'm not cheating, I'm just awesome." - Luke Wolfe

Rawrlolsauce!

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2009, 06:19:34 PM »
0
On a related note, Kevin Youkilis passed Mark Texieria in All-Star voting for AL First Basmen, even though he is mired in a horrible slump. Clearly my fellow Red Sox fans have manipulated the system.
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
I think it should be noted Justin Morneau has a higher OPS+ than both Youk and Tex. I guess the all-star game can't handle our small-market players....
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2009, 06:29:45 PM »
0
If you want to believe the process was tainted, go ahead, but realize that the Coleman lawyers disagree with you,

So let me see if I understand your statement correctly.  Coleman's lawyers sued over the election results so they could go to court and argue to the judges that the election process was complete and correct?

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2009, 06:41:31 PM »
0
lol  ;D
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2009, 06:49:43 PM »
0
I think it should be noted Justin Morneau has a higher OPS+ than both Youk and Tex. I guess the all-star game can't handle our small-market players....

Justin Who? ...... From Minnesota? ......

Wait, isn't that The Guardian? I think he was disqualified from All-Star voting because his 2007 Natz T2 deck was OP'd.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline LadyNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1516
  • LadyNobody
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Reflections (my blog)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2009, 08:40:19 PM »
0
His T2 decks are always overpowered. This is why I stopped playing him in T2. Problem solved.

~Britta
Fortress Alstad

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2009, 11:56:51 PM »
0
This is a little more like Washington state a few years back, where you just keep counting until you get the result you want.
Prove it. The entirety of the post-election proceedings are available on the web, so go point our where Minnesota election officials kept counting until they got the results they wanted. You have made a statement of fact, and all the evidence you could possibly require to prove your claim is available, so please prove your claim.

If you want to believe the process was tainted, go ahead, but realize that the Coleman lawyers disagree with you,

So let me see if I understand your statement correctly.
My argument is simple. You made a claim and I am trying to get you to provide evidence for it.

Quote
Coleman's lawyers sued over the election results so they could go to court and argue to the judges that the election process was complete and correct?
Here's a snippet from the oral argument...

Justice Paul Anderson: "Is there any evidence of any fraud, any favoritism, or anything other than the election officials in Minnesota tried to do the best job possible to apply the law?"

Joe Friedberg (Coleman lead attorney): "Absolutely not, and there's no voter fraud, there's no election fraud."

Just to make my argument painfully clear... You claimed that the Senate election involved officials who kept counting until they got the results they wanted. The lead attorney for team Coleman says the there is absolutely no evidence of favoritism in the process. In other words, you are free to believe the system was tainted if you want, but the Coleman lawyers disagree with you.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2009, 12:07:07 AM »
0
Amazing that you posted that much and never answered my question.

Thanks for that.  I've learned my lesson.

Offline The Spy

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Killing threads with boring comments since 2007
    • Bruce Lee+Ping Pong=Madness
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2009, 12:57:11 AM »
0
On a more philosophical and hypothetical note, the wisened Democrat shouldn't even be proud that his party has such an overwhelming majority!

To be a consistent conservative, I wouldn't even be happy if the Republicans held such a landslide of seats in the senate while having a conservative president. This imbalance, regardless of the party in control, is just that: An Imbalance! Thomas Jefferson warned against boiling politics down to only two parties... he would have shivered to see only one with so much control in politics. The give and take, the debate, and the thoughtful checks and balances don't matter one bit if one party has so much control over the executive and legislative branches.

If I were a Democrat, I would most certainly be frustrated with my party as it cheers on a political realm without appropriate boundaries and mindful conflict. Political conflict is good in and of itself. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
In the Beginning, God created Heaven & Earth. In the End, Man ignored Heaven & destroyed the Earth.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2009, 01:00:47 AM »
0
Excellent point. +1 Spy
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: We have 100 Senators again.
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2009, 01:47:41 AM »
0
Amazing that you posted that much and never answered my question.
I did answer it.  The Coleman lawyers did not go to court because they felt the process was tainted. When specifically asked if there was fraud or favoritism in the process, they answered no.

If your sarcasm was intended to ascertain why team Coleman went to court, that is relatively simple. They went to court in an attempt to get enough additional ballots counted to overcome Al Franken's 312 vote lead. Their legal problem was that the ballots they wanted counted were not legally cast.

Sadly, it's not even surprising (much less amazing) that you decide to besmirch the MN election process with precisely zero evidence to back up your claims.

If I were a Democrat, I would most certainly be frustrated with my party as it cheers on a political realm without appropriate boundaries and mindful conflict. Political conflict is good in and of itself. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I not sure what you mean by "appropriate boundaries." I will admit to being a little disheartened that the Republican party is in such a sad state that it cannot (or chooses not to) put forward substantive policy proposals to act as a counter to Democratic policy proposals.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal