FTA: "I think it is very clear that the people of Minnesota and the courts in Minnesota should make the decision about who won the Minnesota Senate election, and not political leaders in Washington, D.C.,"

I find this quote amusing. Count the lawsuits but don't count the votes.

"I think it is very clear that the people of Minnesota and the courts in Minnesota should make the decision about who won the Minnesota Senate election, and not political leaders in Washington, D.C.," Cornyn said.

The people did decide, but your party wants to go with its new plan for winning elections - have judges (the good ones, not the evil activist types) give us the victories we couldn't get from the people.

In this case I think we should instead refer to filibuster as WHAAARGABLE

Filibuster used to mean some guy had to stand there and talk as long as he could hold out without stopping for breaks.

The new rules basically let politicians say, "I'm filibustering that." and everything stops. Pansies. Go back to the days when Huey Long wore a catheter so he didn't have to go to the bathroom and we will see these filibusters end a whole lot sooner. Make 'em work for it.

Dufus: The new rules basically let politicians say, "I'm filibustering that." and everything stops. Pansies. Go back to the days when Huey Long wore a catheter so he didn't have to go to the bathroom and we will see these filibusters end a whole lot sooner. Make 'em work for it.

Sounds great. But how many senior Republican Senators are already hooked up to catheters?

/Depends.

How many times will this comment get greenlit?

(MN law prevents certification until as a contest of the election is pending so I don't see why he is making the threat)

They threatened it, but didn't do it, did they? For a very good reason: they knew that the party in power can quickly find itself out of power and in need of the filibuster. For the same reason, the Democrats won't end the filibuster either if they're smart.

submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

Now you may have a point if Republicans filibuster Obama's nominees. Until then, there's nothing hypocritical going on.

Dufus: Filibuster used to mean some guy had to stand there and talk as long as he could hold out without stopping for breaks.

The new rules basically let politicians say, "I'm filibustering that." and everything stops. Pansies. Go back to the days when Huey Long wore a catheter so he didn't have to go to the bathroom and we will see these filibusters end a whole lot sooner. Make 'em work for it.

This. This. This.

/remembers "Stackhouse Filibuster" episode of West Wing

So when Franken goes along with the recount (when it's already written into the law), he's attacked.

Yet now that it's been properly recounted and Franken is ahead, nothing is said about Coleman's utter insanity.

The recount is 99% over. Franken is leading. You lost. Go home, asshole.

enry: Dufus: Filibuster used to mean some guy had to stand there and talk as long as he could hold out without stopping for breaks.

The new rules basically let politicians say, "I'm filibustering that." and everything stops. Pansies. Go back to the days when Huey Long wore a catheter so he didn't have to go to the bathroom and we will see these filibusters end a whole lot sooner. Make 'em work for it.

This. This. This.

/remembers "Stackhouse Filibuster" episode of West Wing

I was just thinking that

There is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled state elections system has added to the Franken vote count significantly.

In a civil proceeding any single ballot decision like the ones that have been reported on would amount to a fraudulent transaction and would expose the persons responsible to civil liability.

Frankens campaign is responsible for the votes they accept. If they accept fraudulent votes then so be it, hang them high.

ahhh the glory days of the permanent majority.. remember those days republicans? what was it you wanted again? oh yeah.. up or down vote? no filibustering allowed? ahh its coming back to me.. do you happen to recall the argument that maybe that wouldn't be such a good idea since you might just find yourselves in the minority at some point.. but that wasn't going to happen right? republicans were going to rule forever.. well well well.. how'd that work out for y'all?

archichris: There is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled state elections system has added to the Franken vote count significantly.

In a civil proceeding any single ballot decision like the ones that have been reported on would amount to a fraudulent transaction and would expose the persons responsible to civil liability.

Frankens campaign is responsible for the votes they accept. If they accept fraudulent votes then so be it, hang them high.

Amen to that.
So much corruption at the local levels in all states.
One man, one vote is such a laughable concept anymore.

And people are afraid of going completely to computerized voting for fear of manipulation! Geez.

archichris: There is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled state elections system has added to the Franken vote count significantly.

In a civil proceeding any single ballot decision like the ones that have been reported on would amount to a fraudulent transaction and would expose the persons responsible to civil liability.

Frankens campaign is responsible for the votes they accept. If they accept fraudulent votes then so be it, hang them high.

Now that was just funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Dufus: Filibuster used to mean some guy had to stand there and talk as long as he could hold out without stopping for breaks.

The new rules basically let politicians say, "I'm filibustering that." and everything stops. Pansies. Go back to the days when Huey Long wore a catheter so he didn't have to go to the bathroom and we will see these filibusters end a whole lot sooner. Make 'em work for it.

maybe then we'll get politicians who are actually good speakers, instead of doofi who just read from teleprompters.

helix400: The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

michaeld5: Amen to that.
So much corruption at the local levels in all states.
One man, one vote is such a laughable concept anymore.

And people are afraid of going completely to computerized voting for fear of manipulation! Geez.

Right, so there's no evidence of fraud but you two idiots are plunging ahead with that anyway.

And yeah, who ever heard of a computer being hacked?

/imbeciles!

archichris: There is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled state elections system has added to the Franken vote count significantly.

In a civil proceeding any single ballot decision like the ones that have been reported on would amount to a fraudulent transaction and would expose the persons responsible to civil liability.

Frankens campaign is responsible for the votes they accept. If they accept fraudulent votes then so be it, hang them high.

1) Just admit you lost and move on. You're embarrassing the country (source: Florida 2000)
2) Block the legally accepted votes (treason)
3) Call upon a well regulated militia to protect yourself from democracy (coup)

How far down this path do you want to go? If the incumbent ever loses, it probably is never due to bureaucratic corruption because the incumbent has the most power to appoint them

DoH! Helix400's comment wasn't supposed to be there, was supposed to be archichris.

Would anyone here be interested in letting me know which Republicans are doing the biggest "about face" on this issue?

I only ask because I want to send each of them a personal letter calling them out as the hypocrites that they are. Not like it'll matter, but I'm looking forward to getting the letter from their office in response with the explanation of how this isn't blatant hypocrisy on their part.

/You would be amazed at what these letters say sometimes
//seriously... does anyone have that info, or can they point me in the right direction?

jjorsett: They threatened it, but didn't do it, did they? For a very good reason: they knew that the party in power can quickly find itself out of power and in need of the filibuster. For the same reason, the Democrats won't end the filibuster either if they're smart.

Great analysis, except where you ignore the way it actually went down, Gang of Fourteen and all that.

Other than being completely disconnected from reality, great job.

The whole thing is ridiculous, the ballots both sides challenged border on the combined IQ of the KKK's enforcers.

Both sides are farking horrible, please don't let the media draw attention away from that fact.

Dufus: Filibuster used to mean some guy had to stand there and talk as long as he could hold out without stopping for breaks.

The new rules basically let politicians say, "I'm filibustering that." and everything stops. Pansies. Go back to the days when Huey Long wore a catheter so he didn't have to go to the bathroom and we will see these filibusters end a whole lot sooner. Make 'em work for it.

It can still happen, one side just needs to put up enough resistance to force the other beyond the procedural filibuster to the real one.

helix400: submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

Now you may have a point if Republicans filibuster Obama's nominees. Until then, there's nothing hypocritical going on.

Wow, seriously? You're going with that defense? Seriously? You got some balls, dude, I'll give you that much.

helix400: submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

Now you may have a point if Republicans filibuster Obama's nominees. Until then, there's nothing hypocritical going on.

This. If Coleman were still up and the counting continued, would the same people who want Franken seated stand up to say Coleman should be seated?

/That's what I thought.

06Wahoo: helix400: submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

Now you may have a point if Republicans filibuster Obama's nominees. Until then, there's nothing hypocritical going on.

This. If Coleman were still up and the counting continued, would the same people who want Franken seated stand up to say Coleman should be seated?

/That's what I thought.

This isn't what happened. Coleman is not up.

06Wahoo: This. If Coleman were still up and the counting continued, would the same people who want Franken seated stand up to say Coleman should be seated?

/That's what I thought.

Jesus Christ in a handbag. Count all the ballots. Determine which ones are valid, and who those votes should legitimately go to. After that is complete and confirmed, seat the candidate with the most votes. If it's Franken, awesome! If it's Coleman, that sucks but so be it. What's so hard about that?

Seriously people, stop tilting at windmills.

06Wahoo: helix400: submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

Now you may have a point if Republicans filibuster Obama's nominees. Until then, there's nothing hypocritical going on.

This. If Coleman were still up and the counting continued, would the same people who want Franken seated stand up to say Coleman should be seated?

/That's what I thought.

That's right. You thought you'd condemn Democrats for something they haven't done, yet the Republicans are intending to do.

"It's alright if Republicans do it, because somebody thinks it might be possible that a Democrat would do it" is not an acceptable argument.

michaeld5: archichris: There is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled state elections system has added to the Franken vote count significantly.

In a civil proceeding any single ballot decision like the ones that have been reported on would amount to a fraudulent transaction and would expose the persons responsible to civil liability.

Frankens campaign is responsible for the votes they accept. If they accept fraudulent votes then so be it, hang them high.

Amen to that.
So much corruption at the local levels in all states.
One man, one vote is such a laughable concept anymore.

And people are afraid of going completely to computerized voting for fear of manipulation! Geez.

Awwwwww... isn't that cute. This thread is like eHarmony for the perpetually clueless.

rnld: 06Wahoo: helix400: submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

Now you may have a point if Republicans filibuster Obama's nominees. Until then, there's nothing hypocritical going on.

This. If Coleman were still up and the counting continued, would the same people who want Franken seated stand up to say Coleman should be seated?

/That's what I thought.

This isn't what happened. Coleman is not up.

Yes but you see it's more fun to dwell in a world of hypotheticals. That way you're never wrong and the other guy is never right.

rnld: This isn't what happened. Coleman is not up.

Yes. True.

But it is is possible to conceive of a contrafactual situation in which Democrats look like hypocrites, then you essentially have proven that Democrats are hypocrites.

helix400: Now you may have a point if Republicans filibuster Obama's nominees. Until then, there's nothing hypocritical going on.

O RLY?

06Wahoo: helix400: submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

Now you may have a point if Republicans filibuster Obama's nominees. Until then, there's nothing hypocritical going on.

This. If Coleman were still up and the counting continued, would the same people who want Franken seated stand up to say Coleman should be seated?

/That's what I thought.

First off, the counting is done. Secondly, your two points don't relate. The question is not whether is wrong or right to seat Franken. The question is whether it was hypocritical for the Republicans to want to get rid of the filibuster in the first place (and the answer is "yes").

bartink: jjorsett: They threatened it, but didn't do it, did they? For a very good reason: they knew that the party in power can quickly find itself out of power and in need of the filibuster. For the same reason, the Democrats won't end the filibuster either if they're smart.

Great analysis, except where you ignore the way it actually went down, Gang of Fourteen and all that.

Other than being completely disconnected from reality, great job.

You do realize that the "gang of 14" included 7 Republicans, don't you? Or do you mean to imply that because 100% of the Republicans weren't against "going nuclear" that it doesn't count?

jjorsett: bartink: jjorsett: They threatened it, but didn't do it, did they? For a very good reason: they knew that the party in power can quickly find itself out of power and in need of the filibuster. For the same reason, the Democrats won't end the filibuster either if they're smart.

Great analysis, except where you ignore the way it actually went down, Gang of Fourteen and all that.

Other than being completely disconnected from reality, great job.

You do realize that the "gang of 14" included 7 Republicans, don't you? Or do you mean to imply that because 100% of the Republicans weren't against "going nuclear" that it doesn't count?

No... the fact that Cornyn was against the "Gang of 14" is what counts here.

I see what you did there subby.

Republicans are many things, but they are not hypocrits.

/falls into singularity of snark
//even light cannot e...s....c.......a...........p....

It's look like I'm too late to issue the warning about a lot of Democrats incorrectly stating what Republicans believe and are arguing.

It's a shame that most Democrats simply can't understand the issues or the arguments presented.

Mrbogey: It's look like I'm too late to issue the warning about a lot of Democrats incorrectly stating what Republicans believe and are arguing.

It's a shame that most Democrats simply can't understand the issues or the arguments presented.

Yeah too bad. So since you missed your shot, why don't you just drop a pointless turd at the end of the thread and split?

archichris: There is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled state elections system has added to the Franken vote count significantly.

You should then be able to reference this evidence. Please do so.

bravian: How many times will this comment get greenlit?

(MN law prevents certification until as a contest of the election is pending so I don't see why he is making the threat)

Because the Dems had planed to seat Franken as a "Provisional Senator", the idea being that he'd get to cast votes even before it's official, rather than have to wait.

Which is a crap idea, because if Coleman DID manage to pull out the votes he needs from the OTHER provisional ballots he wants put in the re-count queue, then those "provisional votes" were a waste of time, and illegally cast.

The Dems have a majority even without Franken, they can damn well afford to wait for the MN election to wend it's way to completion before acting as if it already has. It's not like Franken would be the tie-breaker on significant and historic legislation within the next 30 days.

IOKIARDI

Dimensio: archichris: There is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled state elections system has added to the Franken vote count significantly.

You should then be able to reference this evidence. Please do so.

Well, there was the guy who was about to testify about the email servers but his plane crashed on the way...

Oh, wait.

Impeach the filibuster!

It's time for the professional comedians to run things. After 232 years, the amateur comedians in the Senate still haven't come up with a good punch line.

archichris: There is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled state elections system has added to the Franken vote count significantly.

I have to agree with Dimensio on his point. What evidence do you have to make such a statement?

Just because that's the way you feel about the subject, doesn't make it right. Who the fark do you think you are? A Jedi Knight?

bmasso: It's not like Franken would be the tie-breaker on significant and historic legislation within the next 30 days.

No, but the idea of keeping Coleman in the seat may very well affect upcoming legislation.

helix400: submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

Sigh.

The "nuclear option" didn't refer specifically to filibusters.

Look up Senate rule 22 and how the Senate officially changes it's own rules for governing. Pay attention to how many Senators are required to change the Senate's own rules such as, but not limited to, how cloture is passed in the Senate.

This would be worse than just "getting rid of filibusters." The nuclear option meant the Republicans would be instilling anarchy as the official governing philosophy of the U.S. Senate.

It wasn't just a declaration of not following the rules. It was throwing the rulebook in the trash.

"Educate yourself?" Physician, heal thyself.

The filibuster is just fine, thanks. We need it so that a Republican majority can't enact the "God Hates Abortion" law which makes it a felony to ask a doctor for a dictionary definition of "abortion", "abortifacent", and "fall down stairs", and so that Democrats can't get..anything really. I think that's what we learned from the Fightin' 111th: If you don't like it, filibuster.

// a new Senate record!!
// mama must be so proud

helix400:

submitter, educate yourself a bit. The 2004 and 2005 situation was on filibustering judicial nominees what the party was concerned about at that moment only. Nobody ever wanted to get rid of filibusters period.

FTFY.

There was a small bit of opportunism going on, methinks.

THAT was a filibuster.

Dufus: The new rules basically let politicians say, "I'm filibustering that." and everything stops. Pansies. Go back to the days when Huey Long wore a catheter so he didn't have to go to the bathroom and we will see these filibusters end a whole lot sooner. Make 'em work for it.

Absoinglutely THIS.