It aint over- 60 seat Senate supermajority??

Xceler8x wrote: To me, most popular votes won = majority rule. The simple rule of Democracy.

While I'm not trying to chase your flounder, your statement begs the question, Do you understand the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic?

Ultimately your opinion is not really relevant to the issue. The process existed before anyone started their campaigns, and anyone who can't figure out what it will take to have a winning strategy has questionable leadership qualities, in my opinion.

When the Electoral College rules change, my opinion will remain the same.

Leadership requires assessment of the critical path to success, then enabling people to follow that path. Fancy way of saying, "Learn the rules, then lead the team to a win".

I lead my business the same way, I lead my family the same way, I coach my teams the same way, and I build my Challenge cars the same way.

SVreX wrote:

TJ wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

TJ wrote: I like it that after the recount in Minnesota that mysteriously was almost all in Franken's favor, that in a lot of areas there were more votes cast than registered voters.

I'm going to say that is unlikely. That's something that would be to easy to check. In FL the voting results include what percent of the registered voters did vote. Even if Minnesota doesn't publish that info in the same place, it would be all to easy to find.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html WSJ Link

Good article, TJ. I like informative stuff that is reasonable credible.

I have to admit that the article gives a damning view of the recount process. The flip side is that the article is an opinion piece with no author name and no sources to back up a single stated fact. If the author is right, the opposing party should be able to point out the glaring flaws in the recount process and easily get each of those recounts thrown out in court. Since the article was published on January 5th, I would assume that has already been done.

Another thing-the claim is that there are more ballots cast than people who signed in to vote, not than registered voters. That's a much more believable fact.

I haven't followed that one too closely, but IIRC Mr. Franken has been confirmed, and the MN Supreme Court refused to hear the opposing party's objections.

However, lawsuits have been filed....

Note that the opinion is that which is published by the Wall Street Journal, which is not a fly-by-night.

Thank God for the lawyers

SVreX wrote: I haven't followed that one too closely, but IIRC Mr. Franken has been confirmed, and the MN Supreme Court refused to hear the opposing party's objections. However, lawsuits have been filed....

So they have gone through the state court system and now they have escalated it to the Federal.

Is that a question or a statement?

I don't know the answer, but it is a good question.

Wally wrote: Thank God for the lawyers

(Chris Rock as Mooseblood the mosquito in 'Bee Movie): 'I was always a blood-sucking parasite, all I needed was a briefcase.'

SVreX wrote: While I'm not trying to chase your flounder, your statement begs the question, Do you understand the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic?

I didn't. I looked it up. Protection of the rights of the minority being one of the key highlights it would seem.

While that's all well and good our election process, in simpler terms, states the majority of votes carries the contest. The original intent of the Constitution writers. At least some of them. The rest were all for just letting the elite vote in the nxt ruler. Therefore we have the compromise of the Electorial College.

And you are right...my opinion is immaterial. I tried to buy some tires with it once but the guy told me I'd need my opinion and a couple of hundred dollars. I was very disappointed.

SVreX wrote: "Learn the rules, then lead the team to a win". I lead my business the same way, I lead my family the same way, I coach my teams the same way, and I build my Challenge cars the same way.

A valid strategy. There is a philosophical difference in playing to win and analyzing the situation to see how it can be improved. I think we're on either side of that difference. What you state is a way to win a contest with the current rules in place. I'm talking about improving how our gov't represents our desires as stated by the voting process. Pragmatism vs. Idealism?

I knew I should've said "Hullo!" to you at the 2008 Challenge. Nxt time I'll wear a T-shirt with my forum name on it too so we can recognize each other.

Xceler8x wrote: And you are right...my opinion is immaterial. I tried to buy some tires with it once but the guy told me I'd need my opinion and a couple of hundred dollars. I was very disappointed.

That's very funny. On that point we are both in the same boat! Maybe we could have Tee Shirts printed that say, "Just as irrelevant as the next guy"

Xceler8x wrote: A valid strategy. There is a philosophical difference in playing to win and analyzing the situation to see how it can be improved. I think we're on either side of that difference. What you state is a way to win a contest with the current rules in place. I'm talking about improving how our gov't represents our desires as stated by the voting process. Pragmatism vs. Idealism?

I see no difference. These 2 things are certainly not mutually exclusive. One is done while you are in the process, on is done to improve the process. I already said I agreed the system could stand improvement. The point is that no election was stolen. It was fairly executed within the boundaries of the rules at the time.

The Democrats only have to pull a few Moderate Republicans over to their side to pass a bill. This might get some pork out of the stimulus package but the right wing of the party isn't going to get what they want, and if they get too hard nosed about it, Obama can just point and call them obstructionists. An electorate filled with newly laid off employees will have little patience for a party who wants to block their unemployment extensions in the name of idealogy.

SVreX wrote: Is that a question or a statement? I don't know the answer, but it is a good question.

Statement. They have no place to go now but Federal, starting with Federal District Court and in the end, if the SCOTUS can't find a reason, they can always refuse to hear the case. This could still go on for a while.

Got it.

So you are suggesting that the Commerce Secretary seat could also go unfilled for quite a while as well, just to keep the options open,right?

Xceler8x wrote: While that's all well and good our election process, in simpler terms, states the majority of votes carries the contest. The original intent of the Constitution writers. At least some of them. The rest were all for just letting the elite vote in the nxt ruler. Therefore we have the compromise of the Electorial College.

With all due respect, the Constitution really doesn't say that. Check your 12th Ammendment (defining the Electoral process).

The word "Democracy" is not in the Constitution. It declares us a “democratic republic” of the people, by the people, and for the people.

And, since neither Mr. Jefferson nor any other signer of the document is here to explain, it is rather bold and presumptous to assume understanding of the original intent.

Consider- the original Constitution clearly did not include the right for women to vote, or for that matter, proletariats (common folk). By what definition do we assume their intent must have been "majority rule", when there were these obvious glaring ommissions?

ugh.

SVreX wrote: Got it. So you are suggesting that the Commerce Secretary seat could also go unfilled for quite a while as well, just to keep the options open,right?

Looks like he just named one, and there is a deal in place to appoint another Republican to the Senate seat.

He's probably now at the point of finding anybody from either party who doesn't screw up his taxes or hire illegal maids. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_commerce

Snowdoggie wrote: He's probably now at the point of finding anybody from either party who doesn't screw up his taxes or hire illegal maids.

There was that governer chick from Alaskea... oh wait, she probably didn't pay taxes on that last four minute of fame... did she?

John Brown wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: He's probably now at the point of finding anybody from either party who doesn't screw up his taxes or hire illegal maids.

There was that governer chick from Alaskea... oh wait, she probably didn't pay taxes on that last four minute of fame... did she?

how much did those suits cost..