Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes and no. He's asking for the counting of absentee ballots and questioning why, after winning by 225 votes, the dems magically found new ballots and count some Franken votes twice.
Coleman did win by 225 before the dem party shenanigans now put them up by 215.
In short, Coleman wants voters votes counted but only once. Can you believe it?
Did you actually hear the rationale given in Coleman's filing today? I did. He wants to throw out some votes. He wants to cherry-pick others.
You are fabricating facts and you don't understand anything else. They did a fair recount with everybody watching on. There are no "magic" ballots.
Did you actually hear the rationale given in Coleman's filing today? I did. He wants to throw out some votes. He wants to cherry-pick others.
You are fabricating facts and you don't understand anything else. They did a fair recount with everybody watching on. There are no "magic" ballots.
Throw out the ones counted twice and questioning the sudden appearance of new, suddenly found ones. Can you believe the nerve of a guy only wanting the votes for his opponent counted once?
Face it, Coleman won the first impartial vote count and then the dems began game playing. . . they might even get away with stealing it but its silly to just not see it for what it is.
Throw out the ones counted twice and questioning the sudden appearance of new, suddenly found ones. Can you believe the nerve of a guy only wanting the votes for his opponent counted once?
Please listen. Coleman doesn't want to throw out just votes that were counted twice. He wanted to throw out 150+ votes because a few of them might have been counted twice, under a speculative scenario that had no actual evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer
Face it, Coleman won the first impartial vote count and then the dems began game playing. . . they might even get away with stealing it but its silly to just not see it for what it is.
Please point out one Democratic game. Just one. Not election officials finding ballots that were mistakenly not counted. Not the canvassing board adding votes back in that were illegally rejected.
Just one.
Unless you provide a single fact in you next post, I'm completely through with you.
Regardless of who ultimately wins, it boggles the mind that some would pop on here, so blinded by their candidate's desire to win, that they're able to bury their head and ignore the serious issues involved.
Please point out one Democratic game. Just one. Not election officials finding ballots that were mistakenly not counted. Not the canvassing board adding votes back in that were illegally rejected.
Just one.
The Democrat game was counting votes that were not for Coleman. Any vote for a candidate other than Coleman should be rejected.
In all seriousness, this is just another example of Republicans trying to stall and limit changes the Democrats can bring about. It is sad, but not surprising. Coleman has no leg to stand on. This is just a game to limit the impact Franken can have in the senate.
Regardless of who ultimately wins, it boggles the mind that some would pop on here, so blinded by their candidate's desire to win, that they're able to bury their head and ignore the serious issues involved.
Those are two problems uncovered in the recount (that's why recounts are more accurate). They were problems committed by the election officials. AND THEY WENT AGAINST FRANKEN BY 43 VOTES!
Again, point to a "game" played by the Democrats. That was your claim - now back it up.
Those are two problems uncovered in the recount (that's why recounts are more accurate). They were problems committed by the election officials. AND THEY WENT AGAINST FRANKEN BY 43 VOTES!
Again, point to a "game" played by the Democrats. That was your claim - now back it up.
sigh. the double counts didn't go against Coleman. Coleman won the "first" election until the recount game. Now Coleman wants votes to count that were rejected. It's amusing to see how you believe all's rosy while your guy is up in the count. . . did you feel that way when Coleman was the "first" winner?
As of today, every reasonable, open-minded individual will agree that some votes have been counted twice and some have not been counted at all. And some express shock that a candidate would have concerns over that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
