General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWeird! Anonymous is *horrible*, but harming the 99% is nothing to worry our little minds about?
Last edited Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)
It's interesting how some posters are making a concerted effort to wipe out any notion that Anonymous stopped Rove and Company from flipping votes.
(Although, as Thom Hartmann has pointed out, there are some very interesting things that happened...)
Anyway, these folks who are super-strident against Anonymous possibly being helpful seem to be the same people who totally deny awful, awful bipartisan efforts such as attempts to slash Social Security and Medicare, laws that get rid of the pesky judiciary with no recourse, job-obliterating free trade agreements, and other horrific stuff that we can actually do something about.
Human nature is interesting, no?
To be clear, it's very reasonable to ask for evidence before believing this - or anything. My point is that it's fascinating that this is such a HUGE DEAL for some people, while really important stuff for which there's tons of evidence is denied. Evidence is important some times, not others, I guess.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(73,098 posts)teddy51
(3,491 posts)involved, it most certainly is.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)What's your point?
How is asking for evidence for a claim a bad thing.
By the way, you'd make a hell of a juror.
"Well, it's possible he had to kill that man because he really is Satan as he claims. NOT GUILTY!"
teddy51
(3,491 posts)my performance.
Because asking for proof of an opinion is stupid and not productive.
Why don't we turn that around by the, cause it's the same thing. You prove that Anonymous was not involved.
cali
(114,904 posts)is simply basic critical thinking.
And have you really never heard the axiom "you can't prove a negative"?
YOU prove that God isn't a flea in a smoking jacket.
And I don't believe you "serve on juries all the time".
gad.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)for proof, to prove that Anonymous was not involved. You don't know if they were or were not, so don't give me that negative shit.
cali
(114,904 posts)Smells like desperation.
My point was clear.
And you started the "that negative shit", darlin'.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)"Why don't we turn that around by the, cause it's the same thing. You prove that Anonymous was not involved."
duh, duh, double duh.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)
the sort of negative in play here.
Proving a negative is generally like, "Prove angels do not exist."
One can argue it but cannot really prove it.
"Prove angels do exist." This is very simple to do. Just produce one angel.
The only reason anyone is talking about this anonymous business is that a factual claim was made, accompanied by no substantial evidence.
The burden is always on the party making the claim.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Good catch. Thanks. I amended the post.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)LMAO sorry 
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Just EXACTLY what is it you want to believe so badly that anonymous was involved in?
And please, don't give me the "they were going to steal the election and anonymous stopped it!" bullshit. That's just too vague.
So do tell... what, WHAT was the situation anonymous took action about and stopped?
For there to be involvement, there has to be there there. Yup.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)back to me if you disagree with Thom.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101781005
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)For me, that turns the entirety of the previous 10 minutes into a hypothetical.
I have no doubts that IF Rove was the genius you all think he is, and IF he had tried to "flip" the vote, then anonymous would stick by their word and ensure, as they stated in their youtube warning to him, that he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
So it's been exactly two weeks now. Not a word from anonymous other than a questionable letter. What I noticed first is that it didn't end with the same text every other anonymous letter I've read does...
We Are Anonymous
We Are Everywhere
We Are Legion
We Do Not Forgive
We Do Not Forget
This leads me to question whether or not the letter was even sent by anonymous.
Sorry, this doesn't get me across the finish line...
teddy51
(3,491 posts)I have consistently said that it was possible for them to have swayed the election, or block Rove in his endeavors.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)elected president of the US.
I also believe that Karl Rove is a treasonous bastard and I wouldn't lose any sleep over Anonymous or anyone else reminding us of that, regardless of how they do it. Did they stop him in Ohio? Does it matter? They did get a lot of attention for the fact that Rove and Election Fraud should always be mentioned in the same sentence.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
dflprincess
(29,186 posts)
Occulus
(20,599 posts)It's the one glaring fact Certain Parties refuse to address or even acknowledge is possible.
Setting up such code in a software patch is trivially simple
The possibility thus exists.
Ohio Joe
(21,896 posts)Written in an 'easy' manner, that it was there as well as what it did will be obvious. Even written in a 'hard' manner it can be found. Regardless, having it self delete on the target machine does not preclude still having a copy of it for proof it ever existed.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)of resistance to authority. And C. You know nothing about computers, how they actually work, and what the technology makes possible.
Neither I nor anybody not directly involved knows about this one way of the other, but your consistent protestation and declarations of certainty over something you very obviously know nothing about does not reflect well on you.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)Anonymous stopped Rove and Company from flipping votes."
That's what has me annoyed! Anonymous, may have had nothing to do with altering the election, but it certainly is possible.
Squinch
(58,454 posts)are having conversations about it. The moment the subject comes up, the namecalling begins. It's bizarre.
And while I don't necessarily believe Anonymous had anything to do with it, I do think Rove acted very oddly on the night of the election. I don't trust these guys at all.
And you know what? I have good reason to be suspicious of Rove, and I think he's capable of having votes flipped, and I'M ALLOWED TO SAY THAT.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
I even went into how this is feasible, given current technology
I did not say it happened, just that it was feasible.
It is very odd. But I gave up on partisan thinking (both sides) a long time ago. Somehow this threatens their work of the last 18 months. How, I have no idea.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)how wrong you were.
but don't let that stop you from acting like you are an expert.
it's never stopped you before...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021845743
Squinch
(58,454 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Ergo we should discuss that as a valid theory right? Or is it only possibilities that you want to believe that should be treated with reverence?
If Anonymous hadn't lied about things before, like stealing Apple Device IDs from the FBI instead of a private company's laptop, they might have more credibility.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:46 AM - Edit history (1)
Are you saying there never was a shred of evidence that Rove was ever a treasonous bastard? Because that's what I'm reading from your post. There never was a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere but in the US.
Anon has far more credibility than Karl Rove, or are you actually saying they do not?
Squinch
(58,454 posts)dflprincess
(29,186 posts)and I agree that it's possible they did just that. (And, if they did stop Rove, they should be lauded as patriots)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the hacking claim that's absurd. As for the 99 percent, assholes will be assholes: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021856592
Since you're quoting Thom Hartmann, here's more:
In an era of internet lulz and digital false flags, we must demand proof for these sort of claims made by Anonymous. But given Karl Rove’s history with elections in Ohio and the known vulnerabilities with our corporate owned electronic voting machines, there may be both smoke and fire with these election night allegations.
That’s why it’s vitally important for Anonymous to release any information or evidence it has about this plot to not just Julian Assange, but to law enforcement authorities as well. Otherwise, the alleged democracy-saving actions of the hacktivist group will instead be regarded as useless internet antics, relegated to the dustbins of history.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/12845-anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix
Is Rove, untouchable super genius, the only person who knows how to steal elections?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021857211
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Interesting how difficult it is to counter that one! Maybe it is all another Anonymous' trap to trap the real Anonymous?
The First premise being Anonymous had nothing to do with this until proven otherwise, this story would never have gone anywhere. So it starts on an assumption based on a low-quality video released on the Web in some obscure corner with a donate button. This is all before getting to the fantastic details of the miraculous salvation of 2012 in Ohio as told by someone without the foresight to realize Ohio wasn't even needed by Obama. The details of the "fix" in this story would not have been a fix. Steal Ohio and still lose. Sorry!
Sorry to interrupt, just wanted to preface your absurd item with the absurdities that preceed it 
Interesting how Thom Hartmann is having to scurry out and get some "must demand proof" in print after falling hook, line, and sinker yesterday!
starroute
(12,977 posts)I think I've seen you refer to it several times now, and I still don't know what you mean.
The Anonymous video from October 22 warning Karl Rove is here:
It may not be as slick as a few of those that have come out under the Anonymous tag, but I wouldn't call it "low-quality." It seems pretty average. It's posted at YouTube, not someplace obscure, and I don't see a "Donate" button anywhere.
I don't know of any other video since then. Are you aware of something I'm not?
And then there's the letter claiming credit, which came out on November 15. I've seen it in a couple of places, but none where I've spotted a Donate button. And even if there is a button at one of the smaller sites where the letter appears, it's not as though Donate buttons are exactly rare on blogs. Unless a site is clearly set up to solicit donations, tells you that its chief purpose is to raise money for a particular cause, and directs you to a donation page, there's no particular reason to suspect of it being a scam.
So could you link to the "obscure" site you keep mentioning and explain why you find it suspicious?
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)That believing the 'Anonymous' claim is inseparable from opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare and the rest? That persons who dispute the 'Anonymous' claim are, by doing so, supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare and the rest?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Did I write that?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Primary him!!! Dump him!!!
Anonymous saved us and if you don't believe that, you're a charlatan who hates the 99 percent.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Really?
$50 if you find a quote of me saying that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I said that Anonymous saved us?"
Evidently, you said they did something that you now deem irrelevant, and you can't explain what the hell that has to do with the 99 percent, Medicare and Social Security.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)one of us makes a habit of taking things out of context when it suits their argument.
(I suspect that we're both pretty facile with English, though.)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)One of us wrote this unintelligible OP.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)but do play coy. it's so cute on you.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)You seemed to be drawing some such identity....
"...these folks who are super-strident against Anonymous possibly being helpful seem to be the same people who totally deny awful, awful bipartisan efforts such as attempts to slash Social Security and Medicare..."
And it seemed worth having some clarification.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a prank played on Rove (reminding everyone of his past behavior re election fraud in a clever way) for the most part are the same people who deny there is any effort to cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Another such effort has been revealed just this week, btw, this time in a letter from 80 CEOs to Congress (who were busy looking out for THEIR interests while WE were told to be quiet about ours) including the CEO of Macy's asking for cuts in these programs.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Many of the same people throwing a fit over what was most likely the same people who deny there is any effort to cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid. "
...cherry picking the facts to fit a narrative. That's a bogus red herring. No one in their right mind is denying there is an effort to cut Social Security. There are people advocating it daily. There is evidence of that, concrete evidence, actual quotes, ads, etc.
There is also evidence of people who oppose such cuts.
A chastened AARP fights Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid cuts
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163170/-A-chastened-AARP-fights-Social-Security-Medicare-Medicaid-nbsp-cuts
Pelosi and Reid Have OBAMA's BACK: No Social Security Cuts & Taxes MUST Be RAISED On The RICH
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021843971
Also, a lot of Democrats have already taken a stand against cuts.
September 20, 2012
A major bloc of 29 senators took a strong stand today against any cuts to Social Security as part of a deficit reduction deal. "We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package," the senators said in a letter circulated by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Senate Defending Social Security Caucus. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, the Senate's No. 3 leader, signed the letter. So did Sens. Mark Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse and Al Franken, who joined Sanders at a Capitol news conference.
Social Security has not contributed to the deficit or to the national debt, the senators said. The program that benefits more than 50 million retirees, widows, widowers, orphans and disabled Americans has a $2.7 trillion surplus and, according to actuaries, will be able to pay every benefit owed to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years.
"Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing," the letter said. "Even though Social Security operates in a fiscally responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and seem convinced that Social Security hands out lavish welfare checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned their benefits by working and paying into the system," the letter added.
Social Security has not contributed to deficits because it has a dedicated funding stream. Workers and employers each pay half of a 12.4 percent payroll tax on the first $110,100 of a worker's wages. The tax rate for employees was reduced to 4.2 percent in 2011 and 2012, but is scheduled to return to 6.2 percent in January.
To read the letter, click here »
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=066FB085-5798-4E6C-ABA2-85549D84DFA6
Other signatories:
Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.)
This doesn't include Elizabeth Warren and other new Senators.
Democratic Senator Introduces Bill To Lift Social Security’s Tax Cap, Extend Solvency For Decades
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021834952
Speaking by sattelite at the AARP's annual conference on Friday, President Obama took a subtle jab at Mitt Romney's claim that 47 percent of Americans were "victims" who saw themselves as "entitled" to food, housing, and health care, among other things.
"There's been a lot of talk about Medicare and Social Security in this campaign, as there should be," Obama said. "And these are bedrock commitments that Americas makes to its seniors, and I consider those commitments unshakable. But, given the conversations that have been out there in the political arena lately, I want to emphasize, Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. You've paid into these programs your whole lives. You've earned them."
Obama suggested that Social Security's finances could be "put on more stable footing" in part by raising the cap on taxable income. He dismissed as flatly "not true attacks from Romney on $716 billion in Medicare savings included in the Affordable Care Act (and Paul Ryan's budgets), saying that it "strengthened" the program.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/president-obama-medicare-social-security-are-not-handouts
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)to Social Security.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)care about the 99 percent, especially low-income Americans, as they pretend to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021861071
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)to Social Security?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Is this still your fantasy: Obama will cut Social Security...someday?
It's not going to happen, and I'm more interested in seeing a real movement get behind these proposals: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021861071
Wouldn't that be great?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)for 90 year olds, by switching to the chained CPI, during last year's fully-fake debt ceiling "crisis"?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)here by some of the same people who are so 'outraged' over poor Karl Rove's impeccable reputation being smeared by Anon, that there is NO effort to use SS in the Deficit Debate. But I'm glad you do not agree with that because we know that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson intend to keep SS on the 'deficit table' despite the fact that we all know SS has zero to do with the deficit. Let's hope you are right and Democrats will slap down immediately any attempt to do so.
iemitsu
(3,891 posts)zappaman
(20,627 posts)I have yet to see anyone call Anonymous "horrible" or even imply "harming the 99% is nothing to worry our little minds about".
What I have seen is people asking for some evidence of a outlandish claim that most likely isn't even from Anonymous.
But do carry on constructing your strawman...
patrice
(47,992 posts)with based upon who is stating them, rather than any empirical evidence.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I have no view on whether Anonymous stopped Rove from flipping Ohio or any other state.
From the results, it appears Obama was going to win no matter what.
Not surprised you used that speculation to then leap to your other preferred speculation ... the one for which you have yet to offer specific predictions and time frames.
Just more non-specific doom and gloom. I see you brought back the word "SLASH" as part of your amorphous predictions ... and lots of other hyperbole too, but no specifics.
Again.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Social Security benefits last year, via the "chained" CPI trick, a "cut" or "slash"?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Or specifically when they'll happen.
Make the prediction.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)(once he named Simpson and Bowles to head up a deficit committee), that he would actually call for cuts in his 2011 SOTU after Simpson and Bowles (surprisingly!) recommended an eventual 22% cut in the average benefit, and that he would use last year's fully-fake debt-ceiling "crisis" to try for cuts.
I'll leave it to you as to whether those came to pass.
If you find any other predictions from me, I'll send $10 to your favorite charity for each one you find (limit $100 in case I'm having a huge brain fart here - in that case I'll need the $100 to pay for serious medical treatment).
As to predictions moving forward... at this point, reducing SS benefits may be a little tougher for Obama... Harry Reid seems to be genuinely offended by this savagery, we now have Liz Warren who'd likely fight until she's "left blood and teeth on the floor". AARP seems to have replaced their chief lobbyist since the old one called for cuts, 29 Senators signed a letter stating they wouldn't vote for SS cuts as part of a Grand Bargain, and so forth. And Republicans are pretty wounded, they may not want something this repugnant potentially blamed on them, which Obama might be able to do "I was forced...".
As to which it is... you're the one who's claiming that "slash" is hyperbole. I'm thinking a reduction of up to 10% is a slash, but I'm curious as to *your* thinking? And, what do you think will happen to 90-year-olds whose benefits would be cut by 10%?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)While simultaneously building up the rationale for why your prediction won't come true.
Harry Reid is going to stop Obama's evil plan. Even if you lose, you win.
Brilliant.
As for the 90 years olds seeing a cut of 10%, why not go for 20% or 30% ... much scarier.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)22% is what Simpson and Bowles proposed.
What do you think that Obama proposed to Republicans last July?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Its called a negotiation. You put things out there to see how the other side will respond. And we saw how the GOP responded, didn't we. Nothing was ever going to be enough, and that's what Obama proved. The American people saw that the GOP was using the debt ceiling to hold the country hostage and that no matter what Obama put on the table, it wasn't going to be enough. That hurt the GOP.
You simply want to make noise. You can't explain the advantage, political or otherwise, that Obama would obtain by actually cutting SS by 10%. Which is why, to make additional noise on this topic, you bolted your conspiracy theory about Obama's hate for SS with the totally unrelated (and generally speaking, irrelevant) theory of whether Anonymous some how stopped Rove's evil plan to steal Ohio, a state which ultimately, Obama didn't need.
But that conspiracy theory was getting some traction, so you joined the band wagon, mainly to push your unrelated conspiracy theory.
Your repeated claims that Obama is going to cut/slash/gut SS have become a variation on the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Obama put the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in the 2012 lame duck period because doing so gave him all the leverage. Win or lose, he would get to decide what happened.
Now, he can let them all expire and give up nothing at all. Then, the Senate will pass (re-pass actually) a retroactive bill to reinstate the cuts for the middle class, and dare the GOP to vote against it or do nothing.
Now, Obama will, and should, use the time between today and the expiration of those cuts, to see if he can get anything else from the GOP. I suspect the GOP might give up, agree to a bill that ends the upper ends cuts, leaves those for incomes under 500k, and that also kicks the hard decisions about spending cuts and military cuts down the road, perhaps with a bump in the debt ceiling.
In that model, the silly fiscal cliff talk ends with no expiration event, and the media will cheer the new found stability.
Perhaps you can describe what you think Obama gets by making the cuts you've been predicting he'd make for over 3 years now? And include the time frame for it to happen.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or does he need Congress to help?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Next question.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)First off, I think I've accurately predicted everything Obama *could* do unilaterally on Social Security since he appointed Simpson and Bowles to do their dirty work. He can't announce cuts to Social Security, and I've never said that he would. He can only propose cuts, which he has, and agree to cuts, which he has although he was rebuffed by Republicans. By all accounts, he was dismayed when the Republicans turned him down last July.
Second, I don't get your obsession with predictions. Who cares what I predict? It's actions that count.
A family friend of ours was born in the 1920s in Germany. In the 1930s, when Hitler started yammering that the Jews should be eliminated from Germany, her dad actually believed Hitler's spew and moved the family to France, then the US. Most of their relatives pleaded with him to stay, that Hitler was bluffing and posturing. We know what came next. She has few close relatives left, of course.
I tell this story not to compare Obama to Hitler, but to demonstrate the ability of people to shrug off what people say, loud and clear, as bluffing and posturing when it's inconvenient to believe otherwise. People usually mean exactly what they say, particularly when they say the same things for years and work elaborate plans, like appointing the most ardent haters of Social Security from both parties to a "debt commission", using cooked numbers to "prove" that Social Security has a funding problem, repeatedly dissembling about the original purpose of Social Security, and so forth.
You may be right: this might all be an elaborate ruse. But it would be dangerous folly to count on that hypothesis.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)My obsession with predictions is pretty simple. They force one making a claim to either defend it with details, or to dance around, which is what you are doing.
You should be able to describe a path through which Obama could make good on his evil plan. After all, that's what he'd be doing if your claims about him were correct. He's scheming right now as I type, right?
You should be able to name the Dem Senators who would go along with him. And the Dem House members. You should be able to describe what he'd get for making this compromise. I mean, does he get a defense cut for a cut in SS? If SS is truly a chip, surely you have some idea what he could get for it. What he PLANS to get for it.
And your Hitler reference fails not just because its a lame Hitler reference, but because you use your own secret decoder ring items to describe what you think are "loud and clear" ... things that they "say the same things for years and work elaborate plans". If he has an elaborate plan, you should be able to DESCRIBE it. How will it unfold!
Consider this ... if Obama lost re-election, what would you be saying ... that Obama had this secret plan, but he was unable to carry it out. You get to claim your predictions were ACCURATE even though nothing ever happened.
Again, you've created a WIN WIN situation for your position. If something happens, you were right. And if nothing happens, you are also right.
Which returns us to why I again ask you to make a PREDICTION. Go on the record. Explain how the "elaborate plan" will unfold.
Don't just howl at the moon.
cali
(114,904 posts)of phenomenal claims. and of course no one said dick about anonymous being horrible.
What's interesting to me, is how mirror image of freepers some of this CT shit is.
And gee, speaking of super strident, your posts are almost invariably a lovely illustration of that. Not to mention the charming Mcarthyesqe flavor.
Take your broadbrush and...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he, pure and ethical as he is, might ever even think of stealing election. Why not just enjoy the fun of watching his minions so outraged over such an incredible claim, I mean who would ever suspect
Rove of doing anything like that?
That's what I thought would be the reaction, Karma for Rove. Even if he didn't do it that way or this time, he did get away with so much shit, that I won't shed any tears if a few people have some fun at his expense. Why are people taking it so 'seriously'? That's what is so odd about the whole thing. You could almost believe that maybe Anon was serious after all.
Oh yes, and spare me the old, jaded claim that 'we don't want to be like them, we want THEM to know how honorable we are'. Well if you think they care one bit or that they would ever even notice how honest or honorable we are, let me assure you that there really is a Santa Claus!
They respect one thing, and it's NOT the mealy mouthed 'we are such nice people we would never stoop to their level' losing strategy. They laugh at that.
They started a war with us. They chose the weapons, and for over a decade we brought pen knives to gun fights with them. I say use their own weapons against them, blow their theories that Liberals wouldn't stoop to pick up their weapons, this Liberal is way beyond playing nice with them. We saw how that worked. The day they decide to play fair, talk to me about worrying what they think of us.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I have a categorical abhorence of lies.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)good democrats, like Don Siegelman eg, make me sick at heart and I would love to see as much outrage over those lies on this forum as I am seeing about Anon's claims. But Siegelman's posts will never get this kind of attention, sadly.
Frankly if some group of pranksters want to give Rove a hard time, that's not going to cost me any sleep. But what was done to Siegelman by Rove will keep me up at night. However the people who are so worried about this issue are rarely to be found kicking a thread asking for justice for one of Rove's victims.
I'm a little bit skeptical frankly about all this angst over something that by comparison, couldn't be more minor an issue.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)this is gonna be fun 
cali
(114,904 posts)I personally think that some folks here have built that little weasel up to be some sort evil genius with near mystical powers.
In any case, spare me the disgusting mendacious dog shit. Arguments built on such, stink to high heaven.
No one gives a shit, honeypie, what they think of us.
I do give a shit about intellectual honesty, facts and a semblance of fucking sanity.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Karl Rove? If you care about intellectual honesty and you doubt that Rove is evil (no one I know ever thought he was a genius, just plain ruthless) ask Don Siegelman what that lying pos is capable of.
Go Anon, keep spreading the word, keep reminding people of his criminal and fraudulent activities such as outing Valerie Plame. No, he's not an evil genius, he's just plain, ordinary, garden variety evil and a liar who has lied people into jail.
I'm looking forward to the day when there is this much outrage over the lies told by Rove about Don Siegelman. Assuming lies are the issue here. Something else is going on here imho.
Kos' involvement of course, made that a certainty.
patrice
(47,992 posts)good work this year and appear to NEED to reinforce their low opinion of Democrats in general by displacing the responsibility for their win onto someone/thing that not only hides behind a mask, making it possible therefore to lie, but also will not step forward with evidence on this issue.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)actually saying what I think you are saying, that is some Conspiracy Theory you have going.
This is simple. Anon slammed Karl Rove, reminding people of his history of election fraud. Were they serious? Who knows, who cares. People are having fun with it and will continue to have fun with it. It's a very simple, non-complex situation. What is stunning is the all out assault on people who dare to enjoy seeing Rove get slammed. Absolutely stunnin g and since we're now into CT territory I'm beginning to have some theories of my own.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think its not too much to suggest that if anonymous waged a mini cyber war with Rove that evidence is provided.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)My point is that it's fascinating that this is such a HUGE DEAL for some people, while really important stuff for which there's tons of evidence is of little interest (at best).
teddy51
(3,491 posts)So, where does that leave us?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nice try though.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)teddy51
(3,491 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)to the vote collection, tallying process, or anything at all.
Positive claims must be supported by evidence.
You understand how the burden of proof works right?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I am a skeptic.
I find the idea that Obama could not possibly do something he has already done a year ago because he would never do something like that to be crazy.
I also find the need to concoct two dueling conspiracies to explain Ohio going exactly how we all expected it to go (a close Obama win) to be crazy.
There is substantial evidence that Obama is the kind of guy who wants to cut medicare.
There is no comparable evidence of the double hacking conspiracy.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)See post 25.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Same people who pushed the old disinformation are involved too ....
pa28
(6,145 posts)In my opinion Anonymous cheapens it without providing real evidence.
Until they provide some proof I'd prefer to focus on what we do know and that's disturbing enough. Just because Obama won the state does not prove we had a fair and free election.
The unadjusted exit poll numbers are under lock and key but the major media outlets were confident enough to declare it early. The final result was a narrow victory in the ballpark of 100k votes. If the exit polls had indicated anything that close there is no way the networks would have called it that early. So I think we still have a problem there.
I'm convinced Rove and Republicans stole Ohio in 2004 and I'm equally convinced the problem has not been solved. Unfortunately we have a case of denial in our party regarding this particular issue and latching on to some sketchy claims by anonymous just gives them fuel.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)to make voting safe?
And who knows if it was Anonymous who made the claim? It was just an anonymous person who called themselves Anonymous.
Weird stuff, all of this!
pa28
(6,145 posts)In 2004 Kerry won a narrow victory in Pennsylvania despite a negative "red shift" against exit polls of something like 13 points.
He still won so nobody made an issue even though the odds of that were close to zero. Something in the range of being hit by a meteor while eating a bean burrito at Taco Bell.
The facts stink and I think we just need to stick to the facts.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)stiffling the vote, thinking it is fixed, tells people not to vote.
that is how they won in 2010.
no need to steal when your voters stay home.
I am convinced Rove himself is starting this stupid meme and planted the seed in 2004.
They don't call it dirty tricks for nothing.
(btw-who won in 1960? Both sides stole according to all reports.) This is nothing new.
politics was never clean.
and keeping voters from showing up, whatever the reason helps republicans.
more voters help democrats.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Those of us with technical knowledge know bullshit when we see it. And we don't want the whole board embarassing itself by buying into technically illiterate jargon.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)That's how easy it is to steal elections with no one ever being the wiser. Especially if one does not have access to the Source Code.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Hey, y'know that thing about DU?
It's about DU!
Awesome.
annabanana
(52,802 posts)
PufPuf23
(9,713 posts)not to have top class election security and ability to readily verify.
The phenomena creeps me out.
Gore1FL
(22,856 posts)I don't think I have denied attempts to slash SS, medicare, etc.
I believe your hypothesis is broken.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Accusations of a very public figure being involved in a massive attempt to alter the outcome of an election through illegal electroninc means requires the strongest proof possible.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Seems to me there is proof and there is faulty reasoning.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)We aren't even beyond that stage yet.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Ordinary proof versus extraordinary proof. At least one other poster in this thread wanted extraordinary proof.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Extraordinary proof would be enough to convict in a court of law (e.g. beyond a reasonable doubt).
When you make an accusation against a public figure committing an illegal activity, you must have the proof that would convict.
This is why all the nonsense against Clinton in the 90s was nothing but a mass of conspiracy theories. There were extraordinary claims with no extraordinary evidence to back them up.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)to define the term, but don't you think you are calling non-evidence ordinary evidence?
Isn't there really just evidence and faulty reasoning?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Care to share who you are on DK?
DK, a forum that despises DU and always did. One of the clues that told me a lot about Kos and his minions and their little phrases repeated so dutifully such as the one you just used. 'Concern troll' mostly used against Progressives, 'purity troll' another reserved on DK for progressives.
Thankfully most smart progressives deserted that place a long time ago and it's now it's just boring and sterile and populated by the old authoritarians many of whom, like the owner, are 'former Republicans'.
Any board that slammed DU the way DK did was suspect to me from the beginning.
That old phrase just reminded me why I never bought their schtick from the beginning. They always thought they were so clever, when in reality all they ever did was repeat prepared 'talking points' like that one, over and over and over again despite the fact that they weren't clever the first time.
I remember how they treated Obama too when he posted there. It was disgusting and embarrassing. He never went back, like so many others who were treated to their special brand of bullying.
Some of the comments made to Obama on DK were simply reprehensible. No wonder he made no attempt to defend them when O'Reilly tried to get him to condemn them. He didn't but he was not about to defend them either.
Please spare us those old, failed 'kos' phrases. They never caught on as they had hoped, anywhere but DK itself mainly because they were so lame. And they thought they were so much smarter than DUers.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
Hugin
(37,481 posts)For instance.
A real conspiracy that should be fresh enough for this amount of wild eyed hubris.
Yet, crickets seem to be all who care. 
cali
(114,904 posts)Hugin
(37,481 posts)Doesn't the need for spelunking to find such an issue of paramount importance to the average Democrat serve to prove my point?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The topic comes up quite frequently.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't find the idea that a GOP-led electronic voter fraud operation in Ohio was thwarted especially convincing on the face of it, especially based on claims with no supporting evidence, and particularly not in light of the fact that Ohio itself in the end proved irrelevant to Romney's election loss.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." sums it up pretty perfectly.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)If the claim really ISN'T all that extraordinary, maybe the evidence need not be either.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)since there isn't any, just the claim that ORCA was a sinister vote-stealing mechanism and not a really shitty and lame "GOTV coordination" app designed by a campaign that for the most part had no conception of how to leverage social media and the Internet (ORCA: running on one web server? No backup, no redundancy? REALLY?)
See here: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/inside-team-romneys-whale-of-an-it-meltdown/
There's no evidence for any targeted takedown of Romney's lone server. And no reason to suspect a vote-fraud plan that hinged on Ohio. Ockham's razor. "Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence."
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:04 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/50379-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidenceAlso: the claim that a national political party was engaged in a conspiracy to win an election by fraud is pretty extraordinary as is the claim that said coordinated, multi-state effort was thwarted by the actions of an uncoordinated, disorganised external group in some unspecified way. The failures of ORCA are pretty self-evident, and can be ascribed to incompetence and poor execution; as to whether it ever constituted a vote-theft mechanism, that seems doubtful. We're not talking about something like the Republicans taking advantage of the chaos in one state - Florida to get a favourable Supreme Court decision in 2000, or about questionable but legal chicanery like voter ID laws, but about an organised multi-state effort at voter suppression and fraud, organised at a national and not local level, by some of the leading figures of a major national political party. This is by any measure an extraordinary claim; so far there's not a bit of evidence to support it.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)define the term "extraordinary evidence?" Seems like a bullshit phrase to me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who believe in stuff like evidence and proof and science.
The Anonymous theory is more like unskewedpolls.com
noamnety
(20,234 posts)To me it doesn't even matter if it really happened or not.
The sweetness is that republicans have to pretend it's a nonissue while sweating out the possibility that the left may have or could hack the vote. They can't seriously investigate it without admitting that the machines CAN be hacked. And they can't afford to admit that openly.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)who believe that anonymous prevented theft of the election, also believe in perpetual motion machines, the tooth fairy, and suffer from constant bed wetting.
This is easily discerned from the same pool of overwhelming evidence supporting the anonymous claims.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
cali
(114,904 posts)But it's you, so that disgusting comment was probably made seriously.
Congrats.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They pick and choose what they deny. It was over the top to use that example. I appreciate you pointing it out and I will delete it.
cali
(114,904 posts)the Anonymous claim re Rove, Holocaust deniers, but for the love of reason, The Holocaust is proven history with literally tons of proof- not just evidence- proof. It's about as related to the Anonymous claim as Creationism is to science.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I dont mind doubters. In fact doubting indicates keeping an open mind. However, I dont understand those that go beyond doubt and go to great lengths to deny that something happened or may have happened. Some posters have posted a great number of posts not only denying the possibility but ridiculing those that might dare to think otherwise. What is their goal with so much fervor? It certainly isnt to try to get to the bottom of the issue. Seems they only want to shut down discussion.
I dont know if Anon accomplished anything. It doesnt matter. I do believe our election system is terribly vulnerable and little has been done in the last 10 years. If this Anon controversy brings attention to the real problem maybe we can get something done.
Once again, I apologize for my over the top reference.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)Liberals are nice. Anonymous is not. One of their favorite mottos is "We do not forgive" and another is "Because none of us is as cruel as all of us."
Liberals are fact-based. Anonymous is not. They are tricksters, hoaxers, and reality hackers. They love the internet because it lets them mess with people's heads.
Liberals value process and doing things in a legitimate manner. Anonymous doesn't. They value results.
So there's no question of us having to either endorse Anonymous or distance ourselves from them -- because they're not us.
All that really matters is what effect this bit of sidewalk theater will have on future elections. And for it to have the maximally beneficial effect, I think we have to discuss it at great length, use it to call attention to the peculiarities of the 2004 election -- which most Americans still aren't even aware of -- and generally jump up and down on Karl Rove's head with it.
We can do all that with no downside because Anonymous isn't us. So why not relax and run with it?
patrice
(47,992 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)There is no downside.
InsultComicDog
(1,209 posts)So far, there is no "there" there. It's just a vague letter and some behavior on the part of some people that is easily explainable with other simpler scenarios.
I can't rule it out but I find it extremely unlikely that this is anything more than a hoax.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)They can't stand it. They demand proof, but they ignore that this is a good thing to question how our elections are controled by machines.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)WTF is wrong with them?
Proof is for suckers!
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)our elections are tabulated. Why does that just drive you nuts?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Who are you talking about: birthers?
Because claims without proof mean other people will assume any new allegations are false. "Oh, those people just love conspiracy theories."
Remember that 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' fairy tale? Did the village sit down and have a discussion about the need for wolf protection after the false claims?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Instead, it's a great way of getting your actual proof ignored.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Anyway, it ended poorly for the one making claims without evidence.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Thanks for the non-tip. can I call on you for other things I allready know. It ended badly for the sheepel too.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your 2nd post was written before I replied.
And no, the village was fine. Or as fine as a medieval village can be.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Why are they holding out? Are they freepers flumoxed by the complexity of not knowing what anyone is talking about anymore?
Are they paid trolls slacking but turning in hours anyway? It is suspicious.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Ian David
(69,059 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)happening with all the outrage of Anon making fun of him. What's that all about? Screw Karl Rove, Go Anonymous and screw anyone who is in denial about election fraud.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Just because Iran-Contra was real, doesn't mean there are UFOs in Roswell.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with their heads cut off, doesn't mean that anyone ever believed Anon, or that they even intended for anyone to believe them.
Seems like you do not 'get' Anonymous. Seems to me the outrage over this non issue, which was nothing more than a fun side show sticking it to Rove, by some people, is making a lot of people wonder what is really behind all this 'outrage'?
Now I'm thinking that maybe they weren't kidding after all. People thought they were kidding about HB Gary too.
This is so ridiculous, the faux outrage over a non-issue, that now I'm thinking there is a lot more to it than most of us originally thought.
midnight
(26,624 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)There may be a few but not that many..........Mostly, I think it's just people with strong opinions, and nothing more. 
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)committed by wealthy private (see Corporate) interests until accurate elections are ensured to the greatest degree possible, nationwide.
Some folks got the "message", and this makes them very, um....sad, shall we say?
Like what's been goin' on forever, *sigh*... We the People gotta do what We the People gotta do; cuz ain't nobody else gonna do it for us, and that's a time honored fact...
A fact. Sad, but true.
It's like they say, I suppose...
"The good Lord helps those who help themselves".
Again, like what's been goin' on forever, same shit, different day...
Franklin D. Roosevelt Letter to the Democratic Convention
July 18, 1940
Members of the Convention:
In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government.
The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values.
The Republican Party has made its nominations this year at the dictation of those who, we all know, always place money ahead of human progress.
The Democratic Convention, as appears clear from the events of today, is divided on this fundamental issue. Until the Democratic Party through this convention makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory.
It is without question that certain political influences pledged to reaction in domestic affairs and to appeasement in foreign affairs have been busily engaged behind the scenes in the promotion of discord since this Convention convened.
Under these circumstances, I cannot, in all honor, and will not, merely for political expediency, go along with the cheap bargaining and political maneuvering which have brought about party dissension in this convention.
It is best not to straddle ideals.
In these days of danger when democracy must be more than vigilant, there can be no connivance with the kind of politics which has internally weakened nations abroad before the enemy has struck from without.
It is best for America to have the fight out here and now.
I wish to give the Democratic Party the opportunity to make its historic decision clearly and without equivocation. The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time.
"You mad, bro? We told you to expect us."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Especially this:
And this:
The battle is still going on for the Dem Party. But try as they might to stop us, the Left Wing of the Party will never concede it to the Right Wing or the 'Third Way' whose policies are the antithesis of what the Dem Party's are supposed to be.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Democratic Party's ability to act purely in the democratic interests of the People.
Their interference and propaganda is so annoying. If the Dem party could ever get totally free from this incessant corporatist Third Way meddling, we could turn the GOP into nothing more than an insignificant cheerleading squad for the 1%.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You are so right. I think the saddest thing is that this could be such a great country. We have all that is needed to provide for the needs of all citizens.
And as you said, even if our own Party would just stay true to its values Republicans would eventually be marginalized with their insane policies.
And for us to do that, we have to marginalize those who attached themselves to this party with the intention of turning it into Republican lite.
So now we are fighting Republicans and the Third Way who have managed to sneak into the Big Tent. It's going to be a fight that's for sure.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)John Kerry lost the 2004 election the second he was forced to pick John Edwards. That doomed him.
Edwards was NOT qualified for anything, a total fraud (and later of course showed he was to the rest of the 99% that were in love with him back in 2004.
Incumbent presidents win 99.9% of the time
(as nate Silver said, a football leading by a field goal going into the 4th quarter wins more than 80% of the time, and Bush led the entire way.
And where was everyone when Dan Rather was sold down the river, even though what he said was true, and the later commission could NOT find that the memo was fake after all. There wsa no proof either way.But the damage was done, and our media from that point forward has been a total fraud. Dan Rather was the last man standing.
Remember a baseball umpire makes a wrong call in a particular game.
But over the course of the season it equals out for every team.
2000? Well, I 100% blame Ralph Nader, not the shenanigans in Florida.
I also blame the dirty tricks and the Jim Crow taking blacks off the rolls.
Al Gore probably won Florida by 60,000 votes not lost by 500.
HOWEVER- had Ralph Nader not lied and said something so many democrats at the time believed, Gore would have won NH and the election, florida be damned.
(and Had Al Gore and John Kerry both picked Bob Graham from Florida, there would have been no doubt.
John Edwards and Lieberman were the wrong picks. (If Gore wanted a Jewish person, should have picked Wellstone, but Wellstone had a secret that probably scared Gore off (He had MS).
Who knows. We all know later that Wellstone was Wellstoned.
as for other issues???
What in the world does anonymous(whom I think is Karl Rove) have to do with the price of wheat or a bagel? NOTHING at all.
We needed Jeb Bartlett when Bush was president to think of the way it could be.
WE HAVE IN PRESIDENT OBAMA THE WAY IT IS, not the way it could be.
and this bullshit with anonymous is delegitimizing the reelection landslide of President Obama.
sheeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
and by the way
let's not be so high and pure anyhow
Why is it that until CHICAGO is in the game, dems let the other side roll over them.
Both Kennedy in 1960 and Obama in 2008 and 2012 had CHICAGO on their side.
A winner does what a loser won't.
We won in 1960, 1964 and 2008 and 2012.
Ross Perot helped us win in 1992 over a personal grudge with 41.
an incumbent won as always in 1996.
2000 was an anomoly
2004 an incumbent won
2008 and 2012 was history
let's stop making negatives out of positives and keep the correct formula for 2016 (no primary challenge, and total unity, and hope beyond hope that CHICAGO is running the elections
and wake up-1960 showed something
both sides might have cheated. The one that might have cheated more might have won.
Think about it.
Politics from day one was dirty (and everyone compromised from day one) and the so called legendary Thomas Jefferson wrote all are equal, except when it came to the slaves he owned and the women slaves he abused and raped.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Gore lost because Dems were so stupid and Obama was so clever?
It had nothing to do with the fact that after those two stolen elections, Democrats were prepared, thanks to the tens of thousands of Democrats who exposed the fraud, knew what to look for, making it much, much more difficult for them to do it this time and foiled every effort they made to try once again to steal yet another election.
Interesting, your opinion of Kerry. At that time btw, Edwards was a very good choice, politically. And since they WON, it kind of blows your argument out of the water.
So, a BIG THANK YOU to all those who recognized the criminal activity that lost them two elections and worked hard to stop it from happening again. People like Andy and so many others.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and you are missing the message
the theft aspect is irrelevant because Gore would have won with NH and their 4 votes
But he didn't thanks to Ralph Nader
that is a fact.
and you could see it in Kerry's eyes the day Edwards was forced on him. He did not want Edwards. Edwards was perhaps the single worst candidate maybe tied with Quayle and Palin and Ryan. But Edwards quickly was not heard from again, and Cheney creamed him in the VP debate.
BTW, Edwards was shameful yapping about his parents being poor. How low was that?
Sheesh, billions of people were poorer than Edwards and how many of us had $400 haircuts?
He was a complete fraud then and now.
In fact, I actually wanted and wished Kerry got his #1 VP pick-which would have defeated Bush by a mile. (that being the revolutionary idea of Kerry/McCain back when the dems liked McCain and he and Kerry were best buddies. Too bad McC was too chicken to do it. It was an ingenious idea.
(btw-the Time magainze special on Kerry after the election talked about some of this, which was well known during the VP runup.)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I never liked Edwards but that has nothing to do with the fact that Kerry won the election with Edwards as his running mate.
And Nader had nothing to do with the theft of the 2000 election. The treasonous USSC stole that election, which Gore won, for Bush.
Omg, did you really say that McCain would have been a good choice for Kerry? He would have lost MY vote that's for sure. Few of us were ever fooled by McCain's supposed 'moderation', and thank you, but we are talking about the DEMOCRATIC PARTY here. What McCain did by nearly foisting that moron, Palin within reach of the WH was WORSE than what Edwards ended up doing.
I cannot believe what I read here sometimes.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)How could you say he won?
And if he won, why didn't he run for reelection in 2008?
you are not making sense here.
And you seem to be mistaken about 2000. Gore would have won NH without nader.
Place the blame where it was.
On Ralph Nader.
and you are talking about the wrong years. In 2004, there was no Sarah Palin.
SHe didn't show up til 2008, which according to you, Kerry was still President.
???
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I am well aware of when McCain introduced his running mate. It was not surprising at all. And it's not like his campaign did not realize how off the wall she was. They did, but continued to try to win that election fully aware of how unsuitable she was for that position.
My point is, McCain is a Republican, always was and always will be.
Kerry won the election, it was stolen. Every Democrat knows that, and I am certain lots of Republicans, like Karl Rove who helped steal it.
And Nader had zero to do with the theft of the 2000 election.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Gore won New Hampshire if Nader did not run. Do you not understand that to get to 270 in 2000, all Gore needed was 4 more electoral votes, not all of Florida's. Just New Hampshire.
It is really quite mathematical.
And with Gore in the White House, he would have been reelected in 2008.
And who won in 1960?
If the Democrats didn't sell the legendary great President Johnson down the river, he would have creamed Nixon in 1968 and no Bush or Reagan or Nixon ever would have entered the White House and it would have been 40 years of Democrats.
And why wasn't Al Gore allowed a rematch in 2004?
and where were YOU during the recount of 2000? I myself was out on the streets in both Florida and DC at different times during that period.
The streets were paved with just about NO ONE caring.
Why?
Because Nader said it did not matter because Bush and Gore were one and the same.
but what is needed is to GO FORWARD and make sure there is no primary challenge that divides the party in 2016, and that Hillary has a clear run with the full 100% support of President Obama, so that 100% of HIS voters vote for her, the one and only thing she did nothave in 2008
that is the beauty of the phrase FORWARD. WE WON in 2012 by a landslide. That is what is important.
And let's hope Susan Rice is SOS in 2013. And that Hillary wins a Nobel Peace Price on her way to the Presidency for attaining some sort of peace in the Mid East.
And remember Mr. Damour who was crushed to death at Walmart on black friday a few years ago, working security when a stampede happened, because of greedy people wanting five bucks off their mega giant plasma tv's.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We won because Democrats finally woke up and actively worked to stop Election Fraud. In 2000 and 2004 THEY had the advantage, but thanks to the work of those who refused to ignore Election Fraud or be silenced about it, and there is a long, long list, it has become much more difficult to do so. But they DID try. And Rove was flabbergasted that with all their efforts we foiled them.
to those who never gave up, who refused to be silent, who never stopped urging their elected officials to do something about this outrage. THEY won this election and yes, the Obama team got it also. That is what happens when citizens play an active role in their government.
An no, NO Hillary for 2016. She will not get my support. I do not support people who have expressed their support for torture under any conditions, or who voted for and continued to support Bush's illegal wars.
We need new and more progressive candidates. People who oppose Imperial Wars, who will hold torturers accountable by restoring our rule of law. Hillary will never do that. Who will hold Wall Street criminals accountable. She has had a great career although I have often disagreed with her. Time to let someone else have a chance.
I am hoping for Elizabeth Warren, eg. That would get people excited.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)too loudly,
and sound too much alike.
People who live within the confines of The Box generally sound like clones.
I don't know whether Anon Saved the Election in Ohio,
and neither do they.
Some here enjoy the inspiration and stimulation provided by the possibility that this story may indeed be true.
Others are so frightened by this story that they immediately attack those who are enjoying it with unwarranted aggression and hostility.
From the OP:
"Human nature is interesting, no? "---MannyGoldstein
"Human nature is interesting, YES!" ----bvar22
I must confess to a weakness.
I sometimes enjoy poking a stick at the conservative, stodgy, hostile ones,
but it isn't really fair since they are handicapped by their fear and confinement.
DURec!